I only caught this by lucky accident. This guy is more than just a physics philosopher. Why have i never heard of him before? How Tim brings such varied disciplines to bear in his arguments is quite remarkable Video is a hidden gem👍
Love the shade he throws at Laurence Kuhn. The interview he talks about around 16 minutes in is a Closer to Truth episode. Very fun to watch that interview but also frustrating. I’m a big fan of Tim Maudlin.
1:30:55 - I'd say that's true for constantly having *negative* emotional responses to your work. But if you can manage to take joy and satisfaction and inspiration from your work, well, then you're a lucky person. NOT having an emotional response to your work strikes me as a reason to change your work.
I'd never heard of Tim Maudlin or Ashar Khan before watching this. I wanted to thank both of you for the most profound and interesting you tube show I've ever listened to. I'll definitely be following you both on you tube from now on. Also, I've never commented more than twice on any show before. Commenting helps me focus my own thoughts, so take it as tribute to you both. Thank you!!
I like the way Tim Maudlin thinks. He needs to re-examine the epistemology of the block universe where the fourth dimension is orthogonal to the each of the other three and is completely given at once. The future already exists in the block which is only accessable to particles with no mass. Worldtubes don’t evolve in the block. The block doesn’t change we just occupy different slices.
There's only 3 spatial dimensions. Time is emergent non-physical phenomena, different category. Past and future never exist. How would anything in the Universe even interact with event that has yet to be or event that already came to pass? Doesn't make any sense. "Clocks" running faster and slower is for the similar reason you run faster on asphalt and slower through the mud. It's a consequence of being affected by other things, in case of time via mass effect curvature on quantum fields.
Maudlin is so refreshing to listen to. Such a clear way of expressing complex issues. I will say I think there's a corner of his worldview he may not have examined closely enough, which can be sort of "intuition pumped" using the concept of a closed time-like curve. If such a thing exists, it just "always" exists. You can't make one now to connect to the past, since anything going on in the past either already happened or never happened. So, if such a connection exists (whereby Wells' time traveler might jump to today), then it has always existed. Maudlin used similar wording in the very set of interviews he's talking about. But this "always" is definitely a case of stepping outside the "block" and considering it as a whole. And such a whole is clearly static and unchanging. Change is a temporal concept and time is _within_ the block. On such a view "later" means "over there" along a special coordinate of extension (perhaps an inherently directed one). The problem is that, "over here" and "over there" and coordinates of extension are all concepts of _being;_ not _becoming._ Anyway, I agree with so much of what Maudlin has written and spoken about. I'm a big fan. I just think the philosophy of Becoming needs a little more conceptual untying than even he has come to grips with (yet?).
Glad you liked it! I hear what you’re saying, that is a serious problem - I’m just not very well versed in this area so will have to think about it further
In General Relativity, the term " static" is a technical one , so it can 't be used in a different context/ meaning for philosophical discussion about the " block universe" etc.. There are specific cases, where we can call a GR solution " static" : for example, the extended ( Kruskal) Schwarzschild spacetime is static at the exterior ( but the interior - the " trapped region" is not!). Generically, GR solutions are not static or stationary, though. These are characteristics of special , idealised cases. There are , also, other issues with the so called " non globally hyperbolic" spacetimes, such the ones that have CTCs / Cauchy horizons etc. I don't think that the idea of the " block universe" is particularly important ( or useful) when doing physics. General Relativity does not need any such unnecessary additional concepts , in my opinion.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 I was not taking the term "static" from its technical use in GTR. I was using it in the usual sense, and could have used "unchanging" or some other synonym instead. My point is that, if all past and future events exist "over there" along some axis of extension, then nothing can possibly change or move. It can just _always_ (statically, unchangingly) be different in one location than another. Maudlin's own statements about the closed, time-like curves just "always being there" are quite right, but quite at odds with his desire to affirm the reality of temporal becoming.
@@Mentat1231 The whole point in GR is that the spacetime geometry is dynamical: There is a constant " backreaction " between matter fields and geometry, so, generically, there is, indeed, Change. We cannot use the same term ( " static") to describe the same " thing" ( i.e. Spacetime) with two different meanings when we're referring to the same concept, in a specific theory! Many people use these terms as " in a manner of speaking", especially when referring to the Minkowskian spacetime of special relativity where there is no gravitation and the light cone structure is " rigid" , but it's an " oxymoron" to describe as " static" the universe that we're living, for example. While there is no unique way to " slice" a spacetime in GR, we can define such an arbitrary slicing ( at least in " globally hyperbolic" spacetimes) and change does happen, from one slice to another . As i said in my previous comment, only in special cases these terms have a meaning. Spacetimes that have closed timelike curves , either globally ( as in Gödel) or in some specific region, that is associated with Cauchy horizons, are another interesting story.. That's why, even physisists ( like S. Carroll ) that advocate the notion of the " block universe" explicitly avoid using words like " static" or " unchanging" for this. There is no need to create unnecessary confusion, both in physics or in philosophy.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 I agree that we do not actually live in a static world. That's part of my point. But, being different in one slice than in another is an unchanging truth. Difference "here" vs. "there" is not a case of becoming; it's just a case of being. Conceptual clarity is lacking in any model where questions about becoming/changing are answered by pointing to another section of slice that is "over there".
Subscribed, thank you for this conversation. Looking forward to more philosophy of physics and philosophy of math. I wonder if Tim has investigated Geometric Algebra, as it provides a new angle on the formalisms that should guide our development of ontology.
The metaphysical presence is "conciousness". If we are trying to categorize it then we would need a presence that is invariant across all reference frames. If only there was such a construct that could convey information...
Consciousness, for the sake of the topic of quantum mechanics is nothing more nor less than the capacity to find oneself in the role of observer of a particular state. The observer doesn't "cause" the collapse of the wave function. The observer simply finds themselves where the cat lives (or dies). The collapse isn't real, but it describes the observation. There's no need to get any more mystical than merely noting that we have this rather odd capacity to find ourselves in the role of observer.
@@Seehart but its more than that as we too are quantum objects. We are both the object, observer, and the entire universe as experienced through a finite focal point or locus of control.
@@brad1368 it means every observer is "viewing" the universe through their own locus of control, ie perspective. Take an ant, it is observing the entire universe from its own ant perspective. Now take a human, same thing. The difference is when an observer decides to consciously observe themselves, the perspective is shifted inward. The effect of which is the observer gains self realization. When one gains a perspective of self realization one realizes the whole entirety of the universe is orchestrated around that given loci, like a holographic picture or a horn toroidal field/matrix. From that loci everything shifts relative to the observer. Should the observer focus on bees for instance this will enact a feedback loop of information and bees will become the focal point and appear in ant number of ways. From a quantized perspective all quanta are packets of information that resonate at a given frequency. The observer is essentially choosing which frequency to observe.
11:58 Actually when we launch rockets, we're still up-counting. T minus ten means we're starting the count at time t = -10 and going up to 0 (the launch of the rocket), and continuing on after that.
1:19:34 - This is a topic I think about a fair bit. First of all, *fundamentally* I abesolutely agree with Maudlin. We are embedded in a system of economy, and we benefit from. So yes - we do owe back in some sense. That has just become clear to me from years of pondering this stuff (and at one point earlier in my life I was on the libertarian bandwagon, so it definitely has been a journey). However, there is a practical aspect too. I am convinced that if we tried to institute an "equal outcome" system, where everyone got the same slice of the pie, that the system would collapse on itself. The undeniable truth is that the opportunity to gain financial reward is the primary reason most people push themselves to contribute to economic prosperity. We work to earn money. Sometimes that's for purely selfish reasons, but much more often is because we want to provide good lives for our children and so on. It's not all just greed - often it's love. If we remove those incentives, the pie will shrink. So our goal needs to be to LIMIT the extraction of wealth from the system by individuals - not "cancel it entirely." Allowing *some* inequity in the system is the price we have to pay to get the bigger pie, and somewhere in there there is an optimum "setting" - a balance point where the total size of the pie minus the part the rich skim out for themselves is as large as possible. That is what is really the maximum benefit to the most people. I don't even think the amount we have to let people skim is that much - I completely agree that we don't need to have these super-billionaires. No one needs that much money. I've long thought we should set some "not super high" limit, like $500k a year, or a million a year, and heavily, heavily tax everything above that. That's still plenty of room to get out there and hustle. But trying to equalize everything WILL NOT WORK, and it's just self-defeating to go cripple the entire system because we have some kind of envy-hatred for the wealthy. So WHAT if there are some people who pull ahead in the game? We shouldn't care - our goal should be to achieve the highest net public benefit that we can. I hope I phrased that in a clear way; I can already think of some ways it might get misinterpreted, especially by folks who are way into the idea of crucifying the wealthy.
Agree, just crucify the absurdly wealthy who aren't making positive changes for society. In the case of Musk (at least before Twitter) he has used his wealth as leverage to accomplish things that may be very important. I see that as good. However now his wealth has allowed him to enter the social sphere where I dare say he is totally incompetent. That is the problem I see with the accumulation of wealth. In fact, the US is controlled and governed by wealth much more so than by the needs of the people.
The problem is not "inequalities" but ARTIFICIAL EXTREME ONES. And worse, the criminal missuse of them by artificial extrême perverse heavy weights. Like Soros or the FED criminaly missusing huge amount of stolen money to manipulate the World according to their mad agenda, creating colored revolution, changing governments, corrupting institutions, etc etc. Or GAFA abusing their uncontroled self elected power to censor, manipulate elections, etc, according to their arbitrary agenda and fanatic ideology. It's not wealth the problem, not inequalities, but massive corruptions of criminal deep states
Physicist here: When physicists say time is reversible and doesn't have a direction, what they mean is, that due to time reversal symmetry, there is no process direction preference. They acknowledge that we perceive time as flowing in one direction and that is then argued via entropic time. In entropic time there is still not a preferred direction, but a direction in which memories are formed. This means from our theories we cannot deduce a direction of time of the universe but a direction of time for memory based observers.
man but thats not really true as the direction of time is simply the direction toward further chaos. it isnt really reversible or symmetric in real study. that was just a proposed idea that seems to be wrong.
@@henrythompson7768 the increase of entropy does not break time reversal symmetry. It is merely indicative of the universe being an open system, or in other words, information can traverse it's boundary.
@@henrythompson7768 the symmetries we speak of in physics have nothing to do with symmetries on the system we study (the 4d space time for example), but symmetries of the lagrangian, which describes the dynamics.
There IS a philosophical benefit to calculation. The applicability or lack thereof, of an equation gives insight into the underlying structure of reality, which is revealed by whether it is "isomorphic" to the mathematical structure of the equation used. That process can be a great source of deep intuition into the nature of things.
1:24:30 - Do you think we shouldn't have come to America? It's in the nature of human character to explore and to grow. You can't necessarily foresee what space exploration and colonization might lead to. This is the kind of thing where everyone has an opinion, and we have a political process designed to carry those opinions into "chosen realities." It's not something any one person should decide. So it's great to share your opinion, but it's for all of us to make the call.
In my view science fiction is about telling stories, like any other fiction. It just provides the writer a more extensive toolbox to get it done. And possibly ways to bypass or short circuit some of the prejudices the reader may have.
You know why th first Star Wars movie was great? It's because Luke was the Everyman hero, Han was the reluctant hero and the empire were true evil. They stormed the castle, saved the princess and destroyed the super weapon that would have silenced reasonable voices across the galaxy.
Not velocity, but acceleration which is per second, per second, or per second square. That is what makes motion time reversible. The idea is protect statistical thermodynamics which requires that the motion of heated molecules is individually reversible
Finally someone who admits time is non-reversible. In space you can revisit the same place multiple times, but if a moment in time had happened - especially if it changed something in the real world - you can't get back to this place as it was before. Imagine a fire burning a house down. How would you unburn it by just moving back in time? If you play a melody backwards, this doesn't reverse time. Time still moves forward.
Does it? At what "speed" should it "move forward" if it "did"? Or does it NOT? Similarily, what makes you believe you can "come back at the same spot". WHERE is this "spot". Does it have a proper INTRINSIC adress? A sort of "absolute street number" where you can ring the door of? Or does it NOT? Not even the atoms of such "ring", "door" and "home" are the same, in the same state, bounded in the same way, etc. Your belief in an "absolute Space" waiting for you to come back "in space", or in a "running forward time" preventing you to come back "in time", are two illusory beliefs. They are NOT what Relativity is about. Since it needs no more beliefs than SPECTRAL data to synchronise Clocks according to Poincaré algorithm, from which the entire theory follows, bounded by Group theory constraint. There is no PHYSICAL "time", nor "space", not even "spacetime". They are just MATHEMATICAL conventions, tools. The only thing beyond beliefs that we actually HAVE, is SPECTRAL data. NOTHING ELSE! The rest is fairy tails and arbitrary beliefs
@@kpunkt.klaviermusik According to Relativity, not even for the bird flying by. His relative motion will give him, through his clock, if he has any, a different lecture of your clock. There is no absolute clock.That's a first problem. A second bs is that even your clock apparently comes back to its zero graduation every 24 or 12 hours. Not only you have no absolute measure of its ticks rate during one cycle, but you furthermore cant be sure cycles are identical from one another. Real clocks always change, get tired, discharge, etc. Not only are they RELATIVE, but always IMPERFECT. But the ACTUAL point is far worse than that. No clock can be confused with such chimeric notion as "time". Not even simultaneity of events are objective facts. And no clock will tell you what the heck it is doing between two ticks. There is no such thing as "time" to check a clock. Even atomic clocks are just spectral discrete more or less cyclic data. There is no such thing as continuous "time flow". The gaps between ticks is a fundamental unknown. So clocks dont make "time". And there is no "time" that makes clocks either. Since the necessary notion of a "rate of time passing" is obviously an oxymoron non sens. Worse! If something among all, would be what look at all things "passing" without itself passing, it would precisely be such a "time". Which ends the proof of the chimeric nature of concepts like "time flowing", "time rate", "time speed", etc. The dubious notion of "time passing" (forward or backward), is thus born dead. It CANOT even be healed.
Tim is great as usual. One gripe however was his discussion on moral and political philosophy. On the moral front, it felt that his views presumed a 'rule based' approach to ethics, when perhaps a discussion on the merits of that would have been a better place to start. As for the political front, his assumption that inheriting wealth from ancestors who worked 'significantly harder' than we do somehow makes us un-entitled to claim that we've 'pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps' and hence deserve what we earn is preposterous. Just because we inherit a tradition from our ancestors doesn't make us any less able to say within the ordinary context of our lives that we've achieved something which others in similar circumstances wouldn't have had the fortitude to do. It also seems slightly strange to designate when and to whom we are born normatively. It isn't obvious that we can evaluate whether it is fair that we were born in some time or another, or to some parents or another, given that we can't determine the 'ubiquity' of subjectivity (e.g., whether we can more than heuristically compare different subjects like-to-like), nor whether it would have been possible for 'ourselves' to have been born to anybody else.
The Schrodinger's cat was intended to show absurdity of this probabilistic approach to real physical events. A photon is a spherical implosion shockwave caused by electron orbital collapses to smaller/lower ground state. Orbital shrinks, space being continuous superfluid rushes in and domino effect we have a spherical implosion ripple expanding at c from center/origin. Since continuous singular object modification to any part modifies whole. Paired photons are charge/phase inversions of each other (conserving energy) and so this applies to both. One photon is mirror inversion of other. They area single thing. A coin is a single thing but has two sides. That we can force a certain face upwards only means we also have the other face downwards.
How can we use infinitesimally small quantities in physics while asserting a qualitative change of the character of physical laws happening at the Planck's length boundary?
Hi, great video. I'm curious about the Quantum Mechanics authors Tim mentions at time stamp around 34:30. He says Thorne, Wheeler, and Wall? It's hard to tell. Do you have links to these books and authors by chance? Thanks!
Thanks! I think it’s these: Gravitation by Misner, Wheeler, and Thorne General Relativity by Robert Wald You should be able to find them pretty easily in most libraries or on amazon. Happy reading!
One problem with the many worlds of Everett is that it is no better than the theory that (for example) we are in a simulation. It may certainly be true, but it leads to other questions. If we're in a simulation, what about the simulators? If the Ultimate Simulators themselves are not a simulation, then the theory doesn't explain itself. If there has to be an unstimulated simulator, then why wouldn't it be us? Similarly, what causes us to experience a single path of quantum results when we observe them, and not another? Is it arbitrary? If so, the many worlds theory doesn't explain the apparent arbitrariness of the results of quantum observations, which was its main purpose in the first place.
Many worlds doesn't explain QM, it is QM. It is simply QM with no attempt to add anything classical such as state collapse. (so says Carroll, idk if he's right!)
@@nmarbletoe8210 I just don't see it at all. What causes a world split if that's what he proposes. Personally, I've decided that it's a cheap way to try to make the Schrodinger equation the whole (and make some claim about restoring locality). I think physicists should just except Bell's result. The world is not entirely local.
@@carlhitchon1009 Yeah man, we are rolling stones. I like how you say "not entirely" instead of nonlocal. For two particles, it seems bilocal. One bit is in exactly two places. This may be a solution to the ancient discussion of "pure information." Does it need a container? In this case, on bit fills TWO containers! I'm hearing Susskind saying "entanglement is the hooks that hold space together." Consider that everything is entangled, even empty space is entangled with itself, as Lenny describes.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Carrol may be right. One can look at it as a "cost benefit analysis of credibility." For the benefit of the wave particle duality problem going away, one has to pay the cost of believing in a parallel universe for each quantum event in space and time. That's a steep but not insurmountable cost. The difficulty I was referring to was that the benefit of having wave particle duality go away is not quite as great as one might think, since although MW answers why a measured particle is found in a certain place when measured rather than another, (Answer: It is in both places, Each in separate divisions of the universe.) But MW fails to answer "Why did I observe it in one place rather than the other?" i.e. "Why did my measurement 'cause' me to go down one rabbit hole of reality and not the other"? Or at least :"Why is measurement associated with going down only one of two rabbit holes"?
The problem with time, particularly whether it has a direction, is that any description of the issue is bound to be self-referential. It would follow that any philosophical argument about it is bound to trip on itself. Even entropy, it seems to me, describes how order "leads to" disorder. (Arrow of time of course implied.). But people forget that we can only acknowledge the second law of thermodynamics by comparing observed states of disorder/order to our prior experience of the arrow of time.
Great interview... thanks for this video. I too have many interests including science and sci-fi, and music. Just one comment - I tend to think of time not as a "dimension", but the act of measuring motion. One year, one day, one second, are all time-categories that depend on matter-in-motion. When Einstein used the concept "space-time", he was forcing us to think of matter-in-motion. If we lived in a universe that had no motion, that universe would have no time. Thanks, keep the interviews coming.
Also, the universe with no motion would exhibit "Conformal geometry". So if one deity arbitrarily defined a second, it would be indistinguishable from a year. And a meter would be indistinguishable from a light-year. (That's if I've understood Penrose)
@@vinm300 Yet, shapes would be shapes. It is a cool idea Penrose has there. He's talking of a universe with no matter, right? But also, if something is actually moving at zero, which is impossible, but it would have an infinite deBroglie wavelength and kinda be everywhere...
@@nmarbletoe8210 Yes, Penrose has had many good ideas. His cyclical universe (conformal geometry) is interesting - I only slightly understand it. His explanation of entropy is second to none : and the mystery of why the Universe began with such an enormously low entropy.
@@vinm300 CCC is one of the wackiest sounding concepts... and then he is like, "And it should produce circles in the CMB of a certain size, and also specific fluctuations in the gravitational wave background." It's like someone invented a way to test what the Sphinx is actually thinking.
I suggest that just as there is an arrow of time, there is also an arrow of space. The arrow of space points outward and its manifestation is dark energy. But my thoughts are generally not conventional.
It should be clear by now that all the weird and spooky aspects of quantum mechanics arise from one single cause - the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics with isolated particles. None of all the problems arises if everything were treated as waves. No duality, no collapse of the wave function, no entanglement, no schrödinger cat. It is really time to revise Physics.
Oh its unlikely that DUALITY will ever vanish. It seems on the contrary a fundamental and Universal pattern of Nature, and thus Mathematical Models. Even of Langage, Grammar, Logic, etc It's an Archetype that manifest itself in endless ways. DISCRETE vs CONTINUOUS, PARTICLE vs WAVES, SOLVE vs COAGULA etc
@@Igdrazil The question is not wether it is a universal pattern. The question is wether it is real. Quantization for example only says something about the form of the potential and not about nature per se. Even in classic acoustics, a room amplifies discrete frequencies which says something about the geometry of the room - nothing about acoustic waves.
@@maxtabmann6701 On the contrary, "reality" of "DUALITY manifestations" is hardly questionable. How could you read and write if there is no contrast between ink and bord, between something and nothing, between beginning of a word and its end, etc. Simply look again at your hand, it has two obvious sides, one more fleshy that allows to hit the floor, the other side more bony which will brake easely. And I defy anyone to come out with a counter example of such DUAL pattern that drives life on Earth and in the Cosmos, through Light and Shades DUALITY endless manifestations, since, probably, "ever". In this sens it's not only "Real" but ubiquiteous, universal, and probably space and time free. Which suggests its ARCHETYPE "NATURE". Even in pure Mathematics cant you avoid this paradigm which shows up and imposes its robustess all over the Field. DISCRETE and CONTINUOUS, ARITHMETIC-ALGEBRA and ANALYSIS-GEOMETRY, INTEGERS AND RATIONALS or "REALS"), etc. Not even Langage, Grammar, Logic, etc escape its Reign. Since its dual fundamental pattern embodies in BINARY Bool Algebra that give a clear base for Millenium of incomplete and unrigourous syllogism, etc. Experimentaly, the best we have is SPECTRAL data. We "see"...its SPECTRAL data. We "touch", its SPECTRAL data, etc... There is no "space" nor "time", but SPECTRAL information through "observation" and "experiments". But it is possible and a deep but difficult problem Indeed, to recover, from the SPECTRAL data, (some informations about) the SHAPE of the objects that send these data. Alain Connes precisely work intensively on that.
@@Igdrazil could you come back to physics. Otherwise one gets the impression that duality is only a philosophic entity. It reflects more how humans think not what is real.
One way you could find out if a Turing machine is conscious. First insure that the algorithms used prevent it from lying. Then just ask it: Are you conscious?
How do we KNOW the cat is not in superposition? Superposition cannot be observed anyway. And I don't see how one could replicate the two slit experiment with cats...
well ultimately we cant know ANYTHING in reality with 100% 'proven' certainty. so thats not really saying much. one might think we can construct fictional transcendental systems from axioms in order to reach some form of pure Truth, but those truths will always lay on a foundation of fiction.
The progression of events in time exhibit a direction but not the time as a duration which is merely a degree of freedom, analogous to a street on which cars pass in only one direction due to a city ordinance. The city ordinance is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics??
by explaining the Ψ w-function as a probability wave of a potential future event within each individual reference frame. This can be explained by just two simple postulates 1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ explained by Schrödinger's wave equation represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself 2. Is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual! This theory only needs three dimensions within a Universe of continuous energy exchange, continuous change. Schrodinger's Cat as a group of atom collapses' its own wave function forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of its own actions. This gives us an understanding to quantum Mechanics that fits in with the reality of our everyday life! This video explains this thought experiment by using a new theory called Quantum Atom Theory or QAT.
Hello Ian very happy that Schröder's cat is still alive. I like her very much and I assume that She will continue to learn. I say to all People thank you from I can Learn. Thank you for your Report. It is very Interesting.
Human beings do Bayesian analysis in their heads the same way an outfielder analyses the parabolic trajectories of fly balls. And they make mistakes the same way an outfielder would. It's a skill of the Cerebellum, not the cortex! I know next to nothing about cubism, but I can say that much.
Intersting vidio. I agree that Schrodinger's cat is just a thought experiment to illustrate the weirdness of quantum mechanics. I think the measurement problem is hear to stay for a while. Personally I don't like the Idea of shut up and do the math and I do not have any prefered interpration.
Presentism vs eternalism is an interesting idea but difficult to precisely define. I would describe it as analogy to technology. Where eternalism would be like a video tape, where everything just exists in the tape and the machine moves between the frames in the way that we move in time. Presentism would say time is more like computer memory, where there is only a present contents in RAM and this changes as programs run and modify the contents according to algorithms and operations. But the previous and future state don't really exist they're just history or potentials. I am not convinced that general relatively rules out presentism. What GR rules out is a single universal absolutely simultaneous conception of now. But a local now that is not universal may still be consistent with GR.
Since the probability field of QM is nothing more than the time-space sector in Larson's Reciprocal System -- meaning, the probability field is time in three dimensions, the inverse of space -- the cat is in fact existing in different time dimensions at once. It would be helpful if you knew what space and time were. That would shed some, uh, _light_ on the _matter_
Just please don’t put them on this channel. Many RUclipsrs don’t want their subscriber feed flooded with countless small clips of content they’ve already seen as it makes the subscriber feed unusable. To resolve this, most RUclipsrs make a separate clips channel.
..speaking of the ancient Greeks, I'm with Plato and a little bit of Aristotle, that time is the measurement of motion, and instead of asking is time fundamental ask if motion is fundamental...a stronger gravitational field means things move slower than in a lesser gravitational field,,,
At around time marker 28:20, finding an application in real physics for Godel's incompleteness theorem is easy. Understand a model or representation of something can never be the very thing it represents. Just that plan and simple. I mathematical model or description of something is not the same thing that it represents or describes. Just that simple. This is where physicists and mathematicians fail. Mathematics is a useful tool to gain insights due to recognizing patterns, configurations, geometrical landscapes, but mathematics is not the fundamental basis of everything nor the language of nature.
What you said has nothing to do with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. We don't use formal deductive systems explicitly in Physics. The best way to use it is by using the Non Computability equivalent because we use Algorithms extensively and then we know there is a chance that some Laws (like the collapse of the Wave Function) might be non Computable in nature.
@@zemm9003 The collapse of the wave function is not computable because it is not real. Super positions do not exist. Godel's incompleteness theorems show mathematics is not consistent nor complete. A model or representation can never be the very thing it represents, literally is a physical analog of the theorems. There are things in nature that cannot be represented by mathematics, and there are things in mathematics that do not represent nature.
@@odenwalt Godel's Theorem has nothing to do with Mathematics but with formal deduction. It reveals the inability of humans to understand the World past a certain limit. It is a cognitive limitation that is inherent to our species that other species need not have if they are smarter than us. Superposition is basically the first postulate of Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the Wave Function is everything) and the collapse is the Born Rule which is the second. Not only do you not understand Gödel's Theorem but you are also clueless on the Physics side as well.
At 38m 15s, Tim Maudlin says, “That’s where I think relativity is wrong, I think you need a foliation.” A preferred spatial foliation of spacetime constitutes a preferred reference frame, which violates the relativity of simultaneity (all spatial foliations are equally valid) and the relativity principle (the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames), at least in spirit. Tim believes this is necessary to accommodate faster-than-light influences (Einstein’s “spooky actions at a distance”) that he wants to use to account for the empirically verified Bell-inequality-violating correlations predicted by quantum entanglement. This ugly fact leads him to say (at 2h): “This universe we’re living in is not the kind of universe an intelligent creature would make who had humanity at the center of their concerns.” It also led him to write in his book “Quantum Non‐Locality and Relativity” (Wiley, 2011): “One way or another, God has played us a nasty trick. The voice of Nature has always been faint, but in this case it speaks in riddles and mumbles as well. Quantum theory and Relativity seem not to directly contradict one another, but neither can they be easily reconciled. Something has to give: either Relativity or some foundational element of our world-picture must be modified. Physicists may glory in the challenge of developing radical new theories in which non-locality and relativistic space-time structure can more happily co-exist. Metaphysicians may delight in the prospect of fundamentally new ontologies, and in the consequent testing and stretching of conceptual boundaries. But the real challenge falls to the theologians of physics, who must justify the ways of a Deity who is, if not evil, at least extremely mischievous.” We open Chapter 9 of our book "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" (Oxford UP, 2024) with that last quote because Tim’s attitude is the perfect foil for what we show in the previous eight chapters. Not only is there no contradiction between special relativity (SR) and quantum mechanics (QM) due to the QM prediction and observed violation of Bell’s inequality, but the axiomatic reconstruction of QM from information-theoretic principles shows that the two theories actually follow from the same principle. Specifically, the kinematics of SR (Lorentz transformations) and QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle. There is also a beautiful symmetry between length contraction and time dilation per the relativity of simultaneity and the Bell-inequality-violating correlations of quantum entanglement per ‘average-only’ conservation. Let me summarize that here. According to Einstein, SR is a "principle theory," i.e., a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. For SR that empirically discovered fact is the light postulate -- everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR. Likewise, quantum information theorists have rendered QM a principle theory and its empirically discovered fact is called Information Invariance & Continuity. In more physical terms, Information Invariance & Continuity entails that everyone measures the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the "Planck postulate"). Since h is a constant of Nature according to Planck's radiation law, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by relative orientations in space (rotations), the relativity principle tells us the Planck postulate must obtain, whence the finite-dimensional Hilbert space of QM. Quantum superposition is one consequence of the Planck postulate and that leads to 'average-only' conservation, which is responsible for the mystery of quantum entanglement. However, once you understand how 'average-only' conservation follows from quantum superposition, which follows from the Planck postulate, which follows from the relativity principle and Planck’s radiation law, there is nothing mysterious about the Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. Here is how those correlations make perfect sense using spin-1/2. Suppose you send a vertical spin up electron to Stern-Gerlach (SG) magnets oriented at 60 deg relative to the vertical. Since spin is a form of angular momentum, classical mechanics says the amount of the vertical +1 angular momentum that you should measure at 60 deg is +1*cos(60) = 1/2 (in units of hbar/2). But, the SG measurement of electron spin constitutes a measurement of h, so everyone has to get the same +/- 1 for a spin measurement in any SG spatial orientation, which means you can't get what you expect from common sense classical mechanics. Instead, QM says the measurement of a vertical spin up electron at 60 deg will produce +1 with a probability of 0.75 and it will produce -1 with a probability of 0.25, so the average is (+1 + 1 + 1 - 1)/4 = 1/2. In other words, QM says you get the common sense classical result on 'average only' because of the observer-independence of h. Now suppose Alice and Bob are measuring the spin singlet state (the two spins are anti-aligned when measured in the same direction) and Alice obtains +1 vertically and Bob measures his particle at 120 deg relative to Alice. Obviously, if Bob had measured vertically he would have obtained -1, so at 120 deg Alice says he should get 1/2 per our single particle example. But of course, Bob must measure the same value for h that Alice does, so he can't get the fractional value of h Alice says he should (otherwise, Alice would be in a preferred reference frame). Instead, his outcomes at 120 deg corresponding to Alice's +1 outcomes vertically average to 1/2 just like the single particle case. And, of course, the data are symmetric so Bob can partition the results according to -*-his-*- +/- 1 outcomes and show that Alice's results satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum on 'average only'. In the end, Alice partitions the data per her +/- 1 outcomes and says Bob's results must be averaged to satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum, while Bob's partition says Alice's outcomes must be averaged (Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame, Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15771 (2020)). This should remind you immediately of an analogous situation in SR. There when Alice and Bob occupy different references frames via relative motion, they partition spacetime events per their own surfaces of simultaneity and show clearly that each other's meter sticks are short and their clocks run slow. In other words, the mystery of quantum entanglement resides in 'average-only' conservation that results from "no preferred reference frame" (NPRF) giving the observer-independence of h (NPRF + h). And, the mysteries of length contraction and time dilation reside in the relativity of simultaneity that results from "no preferred reference frame" giving the observer-independence of c (NPRF + c). So, whose meter sticks are really short and whose clocks really run slow? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no causal mechanism shortening meter sticks and slowing down clocks in SR. Length contraction and time dilation are not dynamical effects, they are kinematic facts due to the light postulate, as justified by the relativity principle. Likewise, who has to average their data to conserve spin angular momentum? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no non-local or superdeterministic or retro causal mechanism responsible for Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. ‘Average-only’ conservation is not a dynamical effect, it’s a kinematic fact due to the Planck postulate, as justified by the relativity principle. Give up your constructive bias for QM, just as is done for SR, and physics makes perfect sense. God, it seems, is neither “evil” nor “extremely mischievous,” but benevolent in an impartial fashion. In short, NPRF + h and NPRF + c reveal that ‘God has made the world’ so that QM and SR phenomena may be understood via empirical investigations from any and all reference frames of our data collection devices, because the mathematical regularities (including their constants of Nature) that provide an understanding of the data are valid in all of those reference frames.
@@toby9999 As referenced in my Comment: "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" (Oxford UP, 2024). Also, see our papers: "No Preferred Reference Frame at the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics," Entropy 2022, 24(1), 12 and "Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame," Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15771 (2020). Both are open access.
Someone replied to me "Time is that which clocks show." I'll accept that definition if someone can define for me what a "clock" is, (and of course WITHOUT referencing time!) Until then, it still seems that time is so fundamental that it is impossible to define it in terms of any more foundational concept. I say "seems" because time may in fact be emergent, but I know of no details of any theory that establishes conclusively, or even probabilistically, that it is emergent, or what it emerges from. If anyone does, please enlighten me.
I’m not sure if this is part of Loop Quantum Gravity or whether its simply Lee Smolin’s personal views, but he says on an interview with Lex Fridman that “time is just events” and the flow of time is the ordering of causative events. Whether or not this is emergent or fundamental depends on how emergence is defined and could depend on how fundamental an “event” is in your theory.
We observe CHANGES, METAMORPHOSES. And some seem more or less CYCLIC. Clocks are such CYCLIC systems. There is no "time" out of these, at least in physiological Clocks that get lost prety fast when disconected from soli lunar ones, as in a cave. "Aging" is the main source of illusion about "time" arbitrary belief. But there seem to be an INTRINSIC EMERGENT TIME. See Alain Connes in NON COMMUTATIVE GENERALISED VON NEUMANN GEOMETRY
Well if you look at the bell inequality paper and see the ABC representaion of why entagled particles cannot be local ... Thats actually a pure logical argument, that can be shown in a diagram....
The Schroedinger equation is known to be accurate to some fourteen decimal places. I will just suggest that it continues to be accurate to at least a hundred decimal places, and that modification of it is forbidden. There is nothing like a viscosity term to be added on. So how do we get from this rigidly deterministic equation to an outcome where that cat is either definitely alive or definitely dead? Well Bell’s Theorem is telling us to take an interest in nonlocal activity, and just playing around with the Minkowski formalism, we will quickly notice that there could be more than one way to travel faster than light. I would suggest that the SE describes an oscillation in one of the ways. We can have orthogonal tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way. No aetiology is proposed for this. Being orthogonal, TBM is a useless idea in a superfluid. In a warm environment, the tripartite nonlinear interaction between TBM, the wave function and the electromagnetic field is capable of delivering an outcome with a cat classically alive or dead. This is one for computer simulation. An equivalent situation is the interaction between an alpha particle and two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. This needs to have an outcome which is qualitatively different from two molecules of nitrogen trifluoride. Adding tachyonic Brownian motion which is initially orthogonal to everything else is what I propose. Other ideas are welcome. Generally any computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to make use of a random number generator. Is this stating the obvious?
The Schroedinger equation doesn't even predict helium correctly. What you probably mean is quantum electrodynamics... but that has nothing to do with the Schroedinger equation.
@@lepidoptera9337 I am just talking in a generic sense. The received theory of quantum mechanics is in no need of modification at the ensemble level. We lack a theory of the detailed level of individual events. Suggestions welcome.
Here is what is at stake with the block universe proposal. Is the universe open-ended? is it indeterminate? Is it incomplete? Is Laplace demon impossible in principle, not just actually? Or not? If the block universe is "metaphysically real," then not. And if not, then any conception of freedom is ultimately irrational and in actuality impossible. That is what is at stake in that (meta)physical debate. This also gives insight into the significance some thinkers place on Godels incompleteness theorem. It suggests that logic or mathematics itself is incompletable and open ended.
1:10:20 - "It must somehow come about..." Exactly. This is where scientists (and particularly modern consciousness scientists) engage in an act of FAITH every bit as extreme as religious people. "it has to be emergence, because there's nothing else for it to be." The sheer arrogance astounds me. Science has more than earned its keep these last few centuries - it is ***okay*** to say "We have no earthly idea."
..and "Not even wrong". The Calculus of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional logarithmic condensation resonance is never in a discrete condition other than mono-dualistic, a perceptions paradox of dualistic superposition quantization. My Early Childhood Education began in a 1st grade school school room with a wall chart cross section of the Human Eye, and that diagram of inverted images in proportion to the outside image observed. (Now it is making sense, by default, as Schroedinger's Cat imagery should) A Camera Obscura setup that is shown to reproduce the i-reflection containment state of relative-timing ratio-rates Perspective Principle Universe, and the same Singularity-point Lensing orientation-observation of convergence-divergence lines of sight axial-tangential to the mono-dualistic cross section of log-antilog superimposed continuous connection, is as basic a realization of true existence as Schroedinger's Equation is of 0-1-2-ness GD&P parallel coexistence assessment of QM-TIME Completeness Actuality. (Too simple to explain, it's resonance)
So, here is my question. If I close my eyes and jump off a cliff, will I die? Just because you do not know what the state is, does not follow that the state exists.
Unquestionably a great thinker. At least up to the point where his basic assumptions are questioned. And that is: realism. What the experimental validation of Bell's inequalities seems to point out is that one cannot be realist *and* localist at the same time. He clearly chooses to be a realist and a non-localist and goes out of his way to rewrite history to make it appear that most Q physicists (at least the most popular ones) had also made that choice. Notwithstanding the numerous quotes from almost all of the early developers of Q physics that question realism. But, unfortunately, anything that goes in the opposite direction of defying realism, such as Qbism, is treated with some contempt. Following his own sage advice, we should be more open to *any* assumption that agrees with predictions *and* offers ontological clarity. The assumption that the observed world is just that, an "observed" world, is an assumption not to be taken so lightly, in my humble opinion.
”The metrical structure …distinguishes time-like directions from space-like directions”. There goes another couple of months of productive research time. I will end up getting sacked for working in the wrong field of science…
@UCIuxyPK_R3S4YWXguubJ8AQ because I am interested in metrics in general, and would like to understand how they combine time and space. But don’t worry, I will not literally spend that much time on it, perhaps a day at the most : )
I disagree with y our arguments about the brain. Specifically, Penrose et al showed or at least postulated a mechanism by which coherence could be maintained in a "large, warm and wet" structure like the brain (the ordered water inside of microtubules). Secondly, no, science hasn't explained much if anything about how the brain actually works. There's a surface veneer of understanding. A lot of neuroscience fell with the Great Brushing Under the Rug (the replication crisis). Most of it is nonsense.
Mathematics evolved from our physical sense of objects like I have 2 Apples. However the deeper we drove into the physical world it appears to breakdown. The human machine that invented mathematics does not fully understand itself.
@@ricomajestic That's not how I remember it. I do remember Maudlin evincing genuine lack of respect for Kastrup while simultaneously trying to gaslight listeners. I remember thinking Kastrup was right to give him the old heave ho.
@@James-ll3jb I suggest you go watch the video. Kastrup ran off after he called other ideas besides his own stupid and yet he has zero evidence for any of his ideas but somehow his view is the correct one. Maudlin called him out on it and he ran off crying.
Some of the things Einstein thought about quantum mechanics are simply not so. That is not the problem with Maudlin. The problem is that he can't give you a ten word explanation for things that only require ten words. He buries a rather trivial thing under a mountain of completely unnecessary (and sometimes outright false) statements.
Before we can reach a more universal perception, we need to realize a better conceptual understanding of what reality is. I can, of course, only speak from my own introspective experience, which is that universal conceptual perception becomes attainable if you do not begin with the Universe. As humans, we are too strongly conditioned by our human scale within a spacetime bubble. Starting with the Universe as a starting point means you create orientation from a highly complex state. Instead, begin by realizing that reality needs to be self-sustaining, self-acknowledging, self-explanatory, and must contain itself. Reality is bound by principles and can only move forward conditionally. Solve the simplicity of the essence of reality, and then move on to the Universe. A good starting point is this: for reality to be in a state of equilibrium, it must contain nothing that contradicts its own nature as a conditional necessity. Every solution begins with a common thread, a starting point, and the entire solution is the ball of yarn. I wish every philosopher the patience and joy to unravel this thread themselves, in order to discover a complete foundation for reality.
@@lepidoptera9337 It's interesting to think about how reality could describe itself. Perhaps there's more to it than just energy and spacetime. What do you think? After all, energy is a manifestation and a consequence of existence, not the underlying relationship. So I have to disagree with you here, its not a matter of not paying attention, its a matter of being stuck in physics from out our conditioned perspective, or see from a more universal angle. If we do, the latter, energy as well as SpaceTime will show to be emergent.
We mean that the unitary evolution of the wave function has time reversal symmetry. Unfortunately that is not an actual physical process. The physical processes underlying quantum mechanical measurement are, by definition, irreversible. Of course so is the entire universe, so it's not quantum mechanics that is wrong. Hamiltonian mechanics is.
You need a model for what you think it works befor you can discuss what it is, othervise you are just waistingvyour time. E.g. gravity compress space ( solve Einsteins eq without time) and since time is generated by the space it is going slower where the space is compressed. Say in quanta or just in random fluctuations. Then discuss it.
1:18:17 Again you're making a category error. Companies and entrepreneurs find uses for and create products from science. They even advance science in some cases, like Bell Labs inventing the transistor, and Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments inventing the integrated circuit, and Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor inventing the first monolithic IC chip.
If Einstein had been alive when John Bell published his derivation, I reckon Einstein would have reminded Bell that timekeeping is local. When the eastbound particle is at distance +x and the westbound particle is at -x, they are not the same age. The time-varying components of λ(x,t) have decohered and do not have the same phase. Any gravitational gradient along the path suffices to produce dechorence of the phase of λ(x,t). That decoherence explains why Bell's inequality does not agree with experimental observation. In short, the violation of Bell's Inequality proved that Einstein was correct about the warping of spacetime. Bell's derivation would only apply to a cosmos free of gravitational gradients.
One thing we do know is that entropy always inceases so you can't unbreak an egg as the arrow of time is only in one direction. I think what you are saying is that there are local hidden variables that we are unaware of. EPR paradox. A thought experiment one could synchronize the clocks of two entangled particals and perform a mesurment on the one and then see if the collapse is instantaneous as long as they are at rest with one another and free from any external forces. That is oviously not possible so where does it leave us? Einstein convention say light travels at the same speed for all obsevers but we can only measure its speed in a return trip. Many worlds says the wavefuntion does not collapse but intead splits the universe .It seems to me that that what happens depends on ones preferred interpretation.
@@garffieldiscool1163~ In the presence of gravitational gradients along the paths, you can't synchronize the clocks. Each particle ages according to its own local "proper time" and thus drift out of phase and decohere. I suppose if you knew the exact gravitational gradient, you could take a gravitational path integral to precisely compute the phase drift. Otherwise, it's statistically random, which is how it typically appears.
@@BarryKort Yes that's what I meant when I said force (Gravity gradient).Some might say differetial force or fictitious force due to curvature of space time.I was thinking of a flat space time scenario.Gravity is not included in the Schrodinger equation so who knows.
@@garffieldiscool1163 ~ In Special Relativity, one assumes an inertial frame of reference (meaning no gravitational gradients). In that case, one does not have to worry about differential timekeeping. Bell's Inequality can be derived in such a flat spacetime, as both particles experience identical "proper time" - they do age in perfect phase-locked synchrony. But our cosmos does have gravitational gradients so that GR must be taken into account if you want to explain why Bell's Inequality is violated in our cosmos.
i respect maudlin immensely and love hearing him explore interesting topics... but on the topic of ethics and morality i dont think he could be more wrong. there is no objective morality.
Wibble. You will reliably avert from noxious stimuli mediated by pain/suffering states/nociception. That's objectively measurable, and the explanatory model is parsimonious and predictive. *In that regard* treating "everyone" equally is all an objective morality can ever be. Nowhere in that is it implied that a delusional elderly person in late stage dementia should be treated *in an absolutely identical manner* as someone ostensibly sane/lucid/functional.
I think you are taking him a bit to literally. I don't think that's exactly what he means. To me the foundation of morality is don't do to others what you would not like. Of course there are caveats, but that's (I think) what he's getting at. It's interesting that you cannot easily be moral without the skill of empathy. Some people lack this skill and that may be the cause of most of our social problems.
@@carlhitchon1009 I wrote about these elsewhere on RUclips, so I won't do it again here. Morality depends on the moral system you are using. You have selected the golden rule, a saying found in many religions. Yes, most morality depends on empathy, something Kant did not like for the reason you mention; if you don't have empathy toward a group or individual, you will not treat them morally, so he tried to create morality based on rationality, using the categorical imperative: never treat anyone as a means toward an end. (Of course, we often break that rule, just as we often don't treat others as we'd want to be treated.) Utilitarianism says the greatest good for the greatest number. But there are many problems there as well. (This resulted in a video where Peter Singer, the animal rights philosopher, had to admit that the utilitarian system allowed for the child of a terrorist to be tortured if it would save innocent lives.) There are strengths and weaknesses with all of these systems, which I can't go into here. I know more about this area than I do physics. And I know a great deal more about literature. All I do know, with any area of study, is how important it is to question one's assumptions and the assumptions of others. That makes me skeptical about most things I hear/read.
Indulge me and follow this absurdity into a black hole where time stops, if there is no time light ceases, leaving only mass. But mass is equal to energy divided by the spp of light squared. Of course this is silly, but can it be explained by the double slit experiment?
I take it that you are more Bohmian than many worlds then?? Our everyday experience which many invoke the many worlds can be explained by the Bohmian pilot wave idea. If we jump between worlds upon every decision then why don’t we change into worlds with alternate past histories?? If we only jump into worlds with alternate future histories from the point of decision then why, we should also jump into worlds with alternate pasts from he point of decision but that doesn’t happen in everyday experience why?? One reason we do not jump into worlds with alternate pasts is that could be a violation of the order of causation, after going to the store for for instance we could jump into a world where our coffers were full and we did not need any supplies from the store??
and I wouldn’t say physics is the most ontological science either, its pretty much like any other except for its aim to discover as close to an ontological picture as possible at least in one branch. so meaning to say that it is not the science that is special, it is the subject of investigation, which is not entirely the same thing at least to my mind.
If you want to understand what reality is really like, you go to a physicist. We don’t-currently, at least-have a better method of understanding (fundamental) reality. In that sense it most definitely is the most ontologically rigorous approach to comprehending the world.
The bias in Dr. Maudlin's reasoning about time is anthropocentrism. He asserts that time is directional simply because that's the way he experiences it. He is so bound to this experience that he asserts we that we can actually stop questioning directionality simply because he sees no need. That we humans experience a directionality is a very weak reason to believe the rest of the universe agrees.
On reductionism i have one thing to say. Namely that all processes in nature aka out there man aka in the lab occurrences aka the stuff that is actually going on, yes they reduce to the same basic logic of the world as it is, well simply put the reality of the situation is just that, it can’t be any other way because then that other way would be it. Science however is about understanding and usefully using the knowledge about how tgat stuff happens to do stuff, wether it’s furthering knowledge or making tasty ice cream or curing cancer, in that endeavor its safe to say that if we had perfected knowledge about everything we would be able to treat economics, biology and physics as one subject, the only subject, namely what happens next, but thats not where we are and therefore it’s necessary and useful to use different abstractions for different things to get more done, and playing around in all sort of ways with the way we mix and exploiting simple schemes is a very profitable part of that. to avoid a simplistic understanding of this divide its also good to keep in mind that we are just creatures floating around in space over here and having to fully sort out our priors or epistemology before discovering what or how we should do things when met with new challenges is just a giant waste of time, we simply need to practical way to do things, and simultaneously keep hacking away at both our philosophical inclinations and out physical or other theories without letting one side consume the other so to speak, reductionism is fine as long as it isn’t itself seen as a methodological ideal in all cases, and its a tool not a principle for all endeavors.
Anyone who pays close attention to Physics in general is hearing the same cry everywhere: *They are stuck.* Provide a venue for fresh new Ideas to be brought forth by non professionals, laymen and this quagmire will end and new roads exposed. Make it a completion with a financial incentive for the top ideas and a deadline and the roads will be paved within a year. _Come on Elon!_
In the case of ethics its pretty simple, not in a strickly hedonistic sense, but the question of wether or not you can have a good or a bad life, wether a person or an animal can be better or worse of due to the actions of others? If that has any sort of answer, wether subjective or not, it still shows that our actions matter to others in a real tangible way. I think the questions of wether morality is subjective or objective is a bit mistaken m, that only matters in terms of our description of it, in our experience we will feel the consequences and would always have some preference in retrospect, if we have all the experience possible to have and sat down together and talked about what would be right for each of us given perfect clarity in sekf reflection we would surly have strong preferences even independently of a finite set of principles to base it upon, so yeah, above the principles there is such a thing is objective preferences for better lives to live and thats enough as a motivation i think. but given our imposition here as imperfect beings with limited insight, we also have to treat morality as a practical means to reach for that end of everyone being better of on a case by case basis, but keeping in mind that it is the means and exact ends that are a mixture of relative and obscured, rather than the aspiration, which should just be to help each other live better lives as far as we understand a good life, and therefore also try to understand each others conception of such a thing and learn from each other, we can’t really do anything else.
This science discussion is wonderful, the conventional "Christian" ethics is bad. At 1:17:34 his comparison between the work of a coal miner with what Elon Musk does is a category error. Someone like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs made innovations that millions of people voluntarily paid them money for. In fact, since Jobs died with 80 billion dollars in the bank, society still owed him 80 billion dollars' worth of real goods and services for those green slips of paper and ledger entries. ruclips.net/video/Jtxuy-GJwCo/видео.html
Is very simple. Math is just another human language, nothing more, nothing less. You can write stupid and wrong writing in any language and even make sounds logic on it's own terms. It doesn't mean the logic reflect on reality. Like Fiction and Fantasy, there's a lack of comprehension between a fictional math and a real applied one. First time I notice this was unironically the first time I hear a mathematician trying to extrapolate math out of the Bible. And that basically summarize the whole of science today, decaying and wasting mental power as well as time itself. Like the goose chase of dark matter and energy. Or even the Big Bang itself. Sadly opinions and taste sip into science as a whole because of the need of research money. String theory is another thing that is basically a nice fiction base on our lack of understanding about the quantum world. Mathematicians need to be more rumble about their discipline. Less glamorization of the tool. Or even worse, when sectors of science use statistic because they can't figure out the laws controlling a natural system, happen all the time. Weather prediction continue to change every hour for example, and then come politician puppets to say they can predict 100 years when a few days is already hard to do the math of constant change, because is base o n statistics, not a true natural formula. My take as a layman, you may roast me now.
Why does the host whisper almost inaudibly? What great intellectual attribute is imparted to the words he speaks by lowering his voice to a level that is embarrassingly disparate from that of his guest??
The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
QM classicalized in 2010: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the ‘hidden variables ‘ and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, Einstein, Debroglie,Bohr etc. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for physics foundation.
We can explore it indirectly. We didn't know microbes existed until we invented and instrument to see them. The point is that exploring space with our bodies onsite is currently horribly impractical.
Wait, QBism is stupid and that's it? That's the level of rigour displayed by this philosopher of physics? Gee, Tim, thanks for the insight. Sorry, I just can't get onboard with this blanket dismissal of a position like that with no real attempt to give reasons why. QBism is not some loony, fringe interpretation held by maniacs. He also explicitly states he favours Bohmian views because ''it seems to be'' more likely to be true, and that others like Many-Worlds, Collapse theories etc simply don't...
No relation between Godel and physics?? How about time for starters? None of the truths about it can be proven by any axioms of physics by which those truths are not already implied. Prime example of G's Theorem at the heart of physics.
I'm a huge Maudlin fan. Fantastic interview, what a range of subjects. Thanks!
Thanks!
I only caught this by lucky accident. This guy is more than just a physics philosopher. Why have i never heard of him before?
How Tim brings such varied disciplines to bear in his arguments is quite remarkable
Video is a hidden gem👍
Thanks!
Love the shade he throws at Laurence Kuhn. The interview he talks about around 16 minutes in is a Closer to Truth episode. Very fun to watch that interview but also frustrating. I’m a big fan of Tim Maudlin.
1:30:55 - I'd say that's true for constantly having *negative* emotional responses to your work. But if you can manage to take joy and satisfaction and inspiration from your work, well, then you're a lucky person. NOT having an emotional response to your work strikes me as a reason to change your work.
The irony of Schrodinger's Cat becoming the mascot of the Copenhagen cult...
Calling it a cult tells me a lot about your attitude, and it's nothing good.
I'd never heard of Tim Maudlin or Ashar Khan before watching this. I wanted to thank both of you for the most profound and interesting you tube show I've ever listened to. I'll definitely be following you both on you tube from now on. Also, I've never commented more than twice on any show before. Commenting helps me focus my own thoughts, so take it as tribute to you both. Thank you!!
I like the way Tim Maudlin thinks. He needs to re-examine the epistemology of the block universe where the fourth dimension is orthogonal to the each of the other three and is completely given at once. The future already exists in the block which is only accessable to particles with no mass. Worldtubes don’t evolve in the block. The block doesn’t change we just occupy different slices.
There's only 3 spatial dimensions. Time is emergent non-physical phenomena, different category. Past and future never exist. How would anything in the Universe even interact with event that has yet to be or event that already came to pass? Doesn't make any sense. "Clocks" running faster and slower is for the similar reason you run faster on asphalt and slower through the mud. It's a consequence of being affected by other things, in case of time via mass effect curvature on quantum fields.
Maudlin is so refreshing to listen to. Such a clear way of expressing complex issues. I will say I think there's a corner of his worldview he may not have examined closely enough, which can be sort of "intuition pumped" using the concept of a closed time-like curve. If such a thing exists, it just "always" exists. You can't make one now to connect to the past, since anything going on in the past either already happened or never happened. So, if such a connection exists (whereby Wells' time traveler might jump to today), then it has always existed. Maudlin used similar wording in the very set of interviews he's talking about. But this "always" is definitely a case of stepping outside the "block" and considering it as a whole. And such a whole is clearly static and unchanging. Change is a temporal concept and time is _within_ the block. On such a view "later" means "over there" along a special coordinate of extension (perhaps an inherently directed one). The problem is that, "over here" and "over there" and coordinates of extension are all concepts of _being;_ not _becoming._
Anyway, I agree with so much of what Maudlin has written and spoken about. I'm a big fan. I just think the philosophy of Becoming needs a little more conceptual untying than even he has come to grips with (yet?).
Glad you liked it! I hear what you’re saying, that is a serious problem - I’m just not very well versed in this area so will have to think about it further
In General Relativity, the term " static" is a technical one , so it can 't be used in a different context/ meaning for philosophical discussion about the " block universe" etc..
There are specific cases, where we can call a GR solution " static" : for example, the extended ( Kruskal) Schwarzschild spacetime is static at the exterior ( but the interior - the " trapped region" is not!).
Generically, GR solutions are not static or stationary, though. These are characteristics of special , idealised cases.
There are , also, other issues with the so called " non globally hyperbolic" spacetimes, such the ones that have CTCs / Cauchy horizons etc.
I don't think that the idea of the " block universe" is particularly important ( or useful) when doing physics.
General Relativity does not need any such unnecessary additional concepts , in my opinion.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622
I was not taking the term "static" from its technical use in GTR. I was using it in the usual sense, and could have used "unchanging" or some other synonym instead. My point is that, if all past and future events exist "over there" along some axis of extension, then nothing can possibly change or move. It can just _always_ (statically, unchangingly) be different in one location than another. Maudlin's own statements about the closed, time-like curves just "always being there" are quite right, but quite at odds with his desire to affirm the reality of temporal becoming.
@@Mentat1231 The whole point in GR is that the spacetime geometry is dynamical: There is a constant " backreaction " between matter fields and geometry, so, generically, there is, indeed, Change. We cannot use the same term ( " static") to describe the same " thing" ( i.e. Spacetime) with two different meanings when we're referring to the same concept, in a specific theory!
Many people use these terms as " in a manner of speaking", especially when referring to the Minkowskian spacetime of special relativity where there is no gravitation and the light cone structure is " rigid" , but it's an " oxymoron" to describe as " static" the universe that we're living, for example. While there is no unique way to " slice" a spacetime in GR, we can define such an arbitrary slicing ( at least in " globally hyperbolic" spacetimes) and change does happen, from one slice to another . As i said in my previous comment, only in special cases these terms have a meaning.
Spacetimes that have closed timelike curves , either globally ( as in Gödel) or in some specific region, that is associated with Cauchy horizons, are another interesting story..
That's why, even physisists ( like S. Carroll ) that advocate the notion of the " block universe" explicitly avoid using words like " static" or " unchanging" for this.
There is no need to create unnecessary confusion, both in physics or in philosophy.
@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622
I agree that we do not actually live in a static world. That's part of my point. But, being different in one slice than in another is an unchanging truth. Difference "here" vs. "there" is not a case of becoming; it's just a case of being. Conceptual clarity is lacking in any model where questions about becoming/changing are answered by pointing to another section of slice that is "over there".
A serious scientist who isn't afraid to talk about politics, very rare and valuable
He's not a scientist, he's a philosopher.
@@TheDavidlloydjones a scientist who isn't also a philosopher, or a philosopher who isn't also a scientist, isn't worth much
Still waiting on his second volume... Grateful for his interview by the way
Subscribed, thank you for this conversation. Looking forward to more philosophy of physics and philosophy of math. I wonder if Tim has investigated Geometric Algebra, as it provides a new angle on the formalisms that should guide our development of ontology.
The metaphysical presence is "conciousness". If we are trying to categorize it then we would need a presence that is invariant across all reference frames. If only there was such a construct that could convey information...
Consciousness, for the sake of the topic of quantum mechanics is nothing more nor less than the capacity to find oneself in the role of observer of a particular state. The observer doesn't "cause" the collapse of the wave function. The observer simply finds themselves where the cat lives (or dies). The collapse isn't real, but it describes the observation. There's no need to get any more mystical than merely noting that we have this rather odd capacity to find ourselves in the role of observer.
@@Seehart but its more than that as we too are quantum objects. We are both the object, observer, and the entire universe as experienced through a finite focal point or locus of control.
We are not the ‘’entire universe’’.
@@makanani1014...no idea what that means.
@@brad1368 it means every observer is "viewing" the universe through their own locus of control, ie perspective. Take an ant, it is observing the entire universe from its own ant perspective. Now take a human, same thing. The difference is when an observer decides to consciously observe themselves, the perspective is shifted inward. The effect of which is the observer gains self realization. When one gains a perspective of self realization one realizes the whole entirety of the universe is orchestrated around that given loci, like a holographic picture or a horn toroidal field/matrix. From that loci everything shifts relative to the observer. Should the observer focus on bees for instance this will enact a feedback loop of information and bees will become the focal point and appear in ant number of ways. From a quantized perspective all quanta are packets of information that resonate at a given frequency. The observer is essentially choosing which frequency to observe.
Excellent thoughtful conversation. Thank you.
11:58 Actually when we launch rockets, we're still up-counting. T minus ten means we're starting the count at time t = -10 and going up to 0 (the launch of the rocket), and continuing on after that.
1:19:34 - This is a topic I think about a fair bit. First of all, *fundamentally* I abesolutely agree with Maudlin. We are embedded in a system of economy, and we benefit from. So yes - we do owe back in some sense. That has just become clear to me from years of pondering this stuff (and at one point earlier in my life I was on the libertarian bandwagon, so it definitely has been a journey). However, there is a practical aspect too. I am convinced that if we tried to institute an "equal outcome" system, where everyone got the same slice of the pie, that the system would collapse on itself. The undeniable truth is that the opportunity to gain financial reward is the primary reason most people push themselves to contribute to economic prosperity. We work to earn money. Sometimes that's for purely selfish reasons, but much more often is because we want to provide good lives for our children and so on. It's not all just greed - often it's love. If we remove those incentives, the pie will shrink. So our goal needs to be to LIMIT the extraction of wealth from the system by individuals - not "cancel it entirely." Allowing *some* inequity in the system is the price we have to pay to get the bigger pie, and somewhere in there there is an optimum "setting" - a balance point where the total size of the pie minus the part the rich skim out for themselves is as large as possible. That is what is really the maximum benefit to the most people. I don't even think the amount we have to let people skim is that much - I completely agree that we don't need to have these super-billionaires. No one needs that much money. I've long thought we should set some "not super high" limit, like $500k a year, or a million a year, and heavily, heavily tax everything above that. That's still plenty of room to get out there and hustle. But trying to equalize everything WILL NOT WORK, and it's just self-defeating to go cripple the entire system because we have some kind of envy-hatred for the wealthy. So WHAT if there are some people who pull ahead in the game? We shouldn't care - our goal should be to achieve the highest net public benefit that we can.
I hope I phrased that in a clear way; I can already think of some ways it might get misinterpreted, especially by folks who are way into the idea of crucifying the wealthy.
Agree, just crucify the absurdly wealthy who aren't making positive changes for society. In the case of Musk (at least before Twitter) he has used his wealth as leverage to accomplish things that may be very important. I see that as good. However now his wealth has allowed him to enter the social sphere where I dare say he is totally incompetent. That is the problem I see with the accumulation of wealth. In fact, the US is controlled and governed by wealth much more so than by the needs of the people.
The problem is not "inequalities" but ARTIFICIAL EXTREME ONES. And worse, the criminal missuse of them by artificial extrême perverse heavy weights. Like Soros or the FED criminaly missusing huge amount of stolen money to manipulate the World according to their mad agenda, creating colored revolution, changing governments, corrupting institutions, etc etc. Or GAFA abusing their uncontroled self elected power to censor, manipulate elections, etc, according to their arbitrary agenda and fanatic ideology.
It's not wealth the problem, not inequalities, but massive corruptions of criminal deep states
Physicist here: When physicists say time is reversible and doesn't have a direction, what they mean is, that due to time reversal symmetry, there is no process direction preference. They acknowledge that we perceive time as flowing in one direction and that is then argued via entropic time. In entropic time there is still not a preferred direction, but a direction in which memories are formed. This means from our theories we cannot deduce a direction of time of the universe but a direction of time for memory based observers.
man but thats not really true as the direction of time is simply the direction toward further chaos. it isnt really reversible or symmetric in real study. that was just a proposed idea that seems to be wrong.
the universe may still be a 4d object but it definetly does not seem fully semetric
@@henrythompson7768 the increase of entropy does not break time reversal symmetry. It is merely indicative of the universe being an open system, or in other words, information can traverse it's boundary.
@@henrythompson7768 the symmetries we speak of in physics have nothing to do with symmetries on the system we study (the 4d space time for example), but symmetries of the lagrangian, which describes the dynamics.
@@schmetterling4477 please elaborate, which aspect was bullshit.
also sure, i just randomly named myself entropy...
There IS a philosophical benefit to calculation. The applicability or lack thereof, of an equation gives insight into the underlying structure of reality, which is revealed by whether it is "isomorphic" to the mathematical structure of the equation used. That process can be a great source of deep intuition into the nature of things.
1:24:30 - Do you think we shouldn't have come to America? It's in the nature of human character to explore and to grow. You can't necessarily foresee what space exploration and colonization might lead to. This is the kind of thing where everyone has an opinion, and we have a political process designed to carry those opinions into "chosen realities." It's not something any one person should decide. So it's great to share your opinion, but it's for all of us to make the call.
Anyone who is not perplexed and confused about the paradoxes of QM, he's not understanding it.
-- Richard Feynman
In my view science fiction is about telling stories, like any other fiction. It just provides the writer a more extensive toolbox to get it done. And possibly ways to bypass or short circuit some of the prejudices the reader may have.
You know why th first Star Wars movie was great? It's because Luke was the Everyman hero, Han was the reluctant hero and the empire were true evil. They stormed the castle, saved the princess and destroyed the super weapon that would have silenced reasonable voices across the galaxy.
Not velocity, but acceleration which is per second, per second, or per second square. That is what makes motion time reversible. The idea is protect statistical thermodynamics which requires that the motion of heated molecules is individually reversible
Finally someone who admits time is non-reversible. In space you can revisit the same place multiple times, but if a moment in time had happened - especially if it changed something in the real world - you can't get back to this place as it was before. Imagine a fire burning a house down. How would you unburn it by just moving back in time? If you play a melody backwards, this doesn't reverse time. Time still moves forward.
Does it? At what "speed" should it "move forward" if it "did"?
Or does it NOT?
Similarily, what makes you believe you can "come back at the same spot". WHERE is this "spot". Does it have a proper INTRINSIC adress? A sort of "absolute street number" where you can ring the door of? Or does it NOT?
Not even the atoms of such "ring", "door" and "home" are the same, in the same state, bounded in the same way, etc.
Your belief in an "absolute Space" waiting for you to come back "in space", or in a "running forward time" preventing you to come back "in time", are two illusory beliefs.
They are NOT what Relativity is about. Since it needs no more beliefs than SPECTRAL data to synchronise Clocks according to Poincaré algorithm, from which the entire theory follows, bounded by Group theory constraint.
There is no PHYSICAL "time", nor "space", not even "spacetime". They are just MATHEMATICAL conventions, tools. The only thing beyond beliefs that we actually HAVE, is SPECTRAL data. NOTHING ELSE! The rest is fairy tails and arbitrary beliefs
The speed of time is 1 second per second.
@@kpunkt.klaviermusik So you see by yourself that there is no such thing as "time speed" no "flowing time forward". These scams are just non sens.
@@Igdrazil If you wait 10 minutes it will be 10 minutes later.
@@kpunkt.klaviermusik According to Relativity, not even for the bird flying by. His relative motion will give him, through his clock, if he has any, a different lecture of your clock. There is no absolute clock.That's a first problem.
A second bs is that even your clock apparently comes back to its zero graduation every 24 or 12 hours. Not only you have no absolute measure of its ticks rate during one cycle, but you furthermore cant be sure cycles are identical from one another. Real clocks always change, get tired, discharge, etc. Not only are they RELATIVE, but always IMPERFECT.
But the ACTUAL point is far worse than that. No clock can be confused with such chimeric notion as "time". Not even simultaneity of events are objective facts. And no clock will tell you what the heck it is doing between two ticks. There is no such thing as "time" to check a clock. Even atomic clocks are just spectral discrete more or less cyclic data. There is no such thing as continuous "time flow". The gaps between ticks is a fundamental unknown.
So clocks dont make "time". And there is no "time" that makes clocks either. Since the necessary notion of a "rate of time passing" is obviously an oxymoron non sens. Worse! If something among all, would be what look at all things "passing" without itself passing, it would precisely be such a "time".
Which ends the proof of the chimeric nature of concepts like "time flowing", "time rate", "time speed", etc. The dubious notion of "time passing" (forward or backward), is thus born dead. It CANOT even be healed.
It's a delight listening to Tim, thank you very much for this!
Tim is great as usual. One gripe however was his discussion on moral and political philosophy. On the moral front, it felt that his views presumed a 'rule based' approach to ethics, when perhaps a discussion on the merits of that would have been a better place to start. As for the political front, his assumption that inheriting wealth from ancestors who worked 'significantly harder' than we do somehow makes us un-entitled to claim that we've 'pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps' and hence deserve what we earn is preposterous. Just because we inherit a tradition from our ancestors doesn't make us any less able to say within the ordinary context of our lives that we've achieved something which others in similar circumstances wouldn't have had the fortitude to do. It also seems slightly strange to designate when and to whom we are born normatively. It isn't obvious that we can evaluate whether it is fair that we were born in some time or another, or to some parents or another, given that we can't determine the 'ubiquity' of subjectivity (e.g., whether we can more than heuristically compare different subjects like-to-like), nor whether it would have been possible for 'ourselves' to have been born to anybody else.
The Schrodinger's cat was intended to show absurdity of this probabilistic approach to real physical events.
A photon is a spherical implosion shockwave caused by electron orbital collapses to smaller/lower ground state. Orbital shrinks, space being continuous superfluid rushes in and domino effect we have a spherical implosion ripple expanding at c from center/origin.
Since continuous singular object modification to any part modifies whole.
Paired photons are charge/phase inversions of each other (conserving energy) and so this applies to both. One photon is mirror inversion of other. They area single thing.
A coin is a single thing but has two sides. That we can force a certain face upwards only means we also have the other face downwards.
How can we use infinitesimally small quantities in physics while asserting a qualitative change of the character of physical laws happening at the Planck's length boundary?
Hi, great video. I'm curious about the Quantum Mechanics authors Tim mentions at time stamp around 34:30. He says Thorne, Wheeler, and Wall? It's hard to tell. Do you have links to these books and authors by chance? Thanks!
Thanks! I think it’s these:
Gravitation by Misner, Wheeler, and Thorne
General Relativity by Robert Wald
You should be able to find them pretty easily in most libraries or on amazon. Happy reading!
One problem with the many worlds of Everett is that it is no better than the theory that (for example) we are in a simulation. It may certainly be true, but it leads to other questions. If we're in a simulation, what about the simulators? If the Ultimate Simulators themselves are not a simulation, then the theory doesn't explain itself. If there has to be an unstimulated simulator, then why wouldn't it be us? Similarly, what causes us to experience a single path of quantum results when we observe them, and not another? Is it arbitrary? If so, the many worlds theory doesn't explain the apparent arbitrariness of the results of quantum observations, which was its main purpose in the first place.
Many worlds doesn't explain QM, it is QM. It is simply QM with no attempt to add anything classical such as state collapse. (so says Carroll, idk if he's right!)
@@nmarbletoe8210 I just don't see it at all. What causes a world split if that's what he proposes. Personally, I've decided that it's a cheap way to try to make the Schrodinger equation the whole (and make some claim about restoring locality). I think physicists should just except Bell's result. The world is not entirely local.
@@carlhitchon1009 Yeah man, we are rolling stones. I like how you say "not entirely" instead of nonlocal. For two particles, it seems bilocal. One bit is in exactly two places.
This may be a solution to the ancient discussion of "pure information." Does it need a container? In this case, on bit fills TWO containers!
I'm hearing Susskind saying "entanglement is the hooks that hold space together." Consider that everything is entangled, even empty space is entangled with itself, as Lenny describes.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Carrol may be right. One can look at it as a "cost benefit analysis of credibility." For the benefit of the wave particle duality problem going away, one has to pay the cost of believing in a parallel universe for each quantum event in space and time. That's a steep but not insurmountable cost. The difficulty I was referring to was that the benefit of having wave particle duality go away is not quite as great as one might think, since although MW answers why a measured particle is found in a certain place when measured rather than another, (Answer: It is in both places, Each in separate divisions of the universe.) But MW fails to answer "Why did I observe it in one place rather than the other?" i.e. "Why did my measurement 'cause' me to go down one rabbit hole of reality and not the other"? Or at least :"Why is measurement associated with going down only one of two rabbit holes"?
@@johnstebbins6262 Good insight. It just pushes the problem around.
The problem with time, particularly whether it has a direction, is that any description of the issue is bound to be self-referential. It would follow that any philosophical argument about it is bound to trip on itself. Even entropy, it seems to me, describes how order "leads to" disorder. (Arrow of time of course implied.). But people forget that we can only acknowledge the second law of thermodynamics by comparing observed states of disorder/order to our prior experience of the arrow of time.
Great interview... thanks for this video. I too have many interests including science and sci-fi, and music. Just one comment - I tend to think of time not as a "dimension", but the act of measuring motion. One year, one day, one second, are all time-categories that depend on matter-in-motion. When Einstein used the concept "space-time", he was forcing us to think of matter-in-motion. If we lived in a universe that had no motion, that universe would have no time. Thanks, keep the interviews coming.
Also, the universe with no motion would exhibit "Conformal geometry".
So if one deity arbitrarily defined a second, it would be indistinguishable from a year. And a meter would be indistinguishable from a light-year.
(That's if I've understood Penrose)
@@vinm300 Yet, shapes would be shapes. It is a cool idea Penrose has there. He's talking of a universe with no matter, right? But also, if something is actually moving at zero, which is impossible, but it would have an infinite deBroglie wavelength and kinda be everywhere...
@@nmarbletoe8210 Yes, Penrose has had many good ideas.
His cyclical universe (conformal geometry) is interesting - I only slightly understand it.
His explanation of entropy is second to none : and the mystery of why the Universe began with such an enormously low entropy.
@@vinm300 CCC is one of the wackiest sounding concepts... and then he is like, "And it should produce circles in the CMB of a certain size, and also specific fluctuations in the gravitational wave background."
It's like someone invented a way to test what the Sphinx is actually thinking.
I suggest that just as there is an arrow of time, there is also an arrow of space. The arrow of space points outward and its manifestation is dark energy. But my thoughts are generally not conventional.
Time is not an illusion.
Yes it is. As Douglas Adams said, "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." -:)
can you make some clips out of this? e.g. Where does he discuss the misinterpretation of the shroedinger's cat analogy?
For sure, I’ll work on that!
It's been about 100 years. The cat is dead.
It should be clear by now that all the weird and spooky aspects of quantum mechanics arise from one single cause - the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics with isolated particles. None of all the problems arises if everything were treated as waves. No duality, no collapse of the wave function, no entanglement, no schrödinger cat. It is really time to revise Physics.
How's that? Do you have a theory to point to?
Oh its unlikely that DUALITY will ever vanish. It seems on the contrary a fundamental and Universal pattern of Nature, and thus Mathematical Models. Even of Langage, Grammar, Logic, etc
It's an Archetype that manifest itself in endless ways. DISCRETE vs CONTINUOUS, PARTICLE vs WAVES, SOLVE vs COAGULA etc
@@Igdrazil The question is not wether it is a universal pattern. The question is wether it is real. Quantization for example only says something about the form of the potential and not about nature per se. Even in classic acoustics, a room amplifies discrete frequencies which says something about the geometry of the room - nothing about acoustic waves.
@@maxtabmann6701 On the contrary, "reality" of "DUALITY manifestations" is hardly questionable. How could you read and write if there is no contrast between ink and bord, between something and nothing, between beginning of a word and its end, etc. Simply look again at your hand, it has two obvious sides, one more fleshy that allows to hit the floor, the other side more bony which will brake easely.
And I defy anyone to come out with a counter example of such DUAL pattern that drives life on Earth and in the Cosmos, through Light and Shades DUALITY endless manifestations, since, probably, "ever".
In this sens it's not only "Real" but ubiquiteous, universal, and probably space and time free. Which suggests its ARCHETYPE "NATURE".
Even in pure Mathematics cant you avoid this paradigm which shows up and imposes its robustess all over the Field. DISCRETE and CONTINUOUS, ARITHMETIC-ALGEBRA and ANALYSIS-GEOMETRY, INTEGERS AND RATIONALS or "REALS"), etc.
Not even Langage, Grammar, Logic, etc escape its Reign. Since its dual fundamental pattern embodies in BINARY Bool Algebra that give a clear base for Millenium of incomplete and unrigourous syllogism, etc.
Experimentaly, the best we have is SPECTRAL data. We "see"...its SPECTRAL data. We "touch", its SPECTRAL data, etc...
There is no "space" nor "time", but SPECTRAL information through "observation" and "experiments".
But it is possible and a deep but difficult problem Indeed, to recover, from the SPECTRAL data, (some informations about) the SHAPE of the objects that send these data. Alain Connes precisely work intensively on that.
@@Igdrazil could you come back to physics. Otherwise one gets the impression that duality is only a philosophic entity. It reflects more how humans think not what is real.
One way you could find out if a Turing machine is conscious. First insure that the algorithms used prevent it from lying. Then just ask it: Are you conscious?
🤣
The problem with the joke is the definition of "lying" when even synchronicity of events is not more Universal than Bruno trajectories.
How do we KNOW the cat is not in superposition? Superposition cannot be observed anyway. And I don't see how one could replicate the two slit experiment with cats...
well ultimately we cant know ANYTHING in reality with 100% 'proven' certainty. so thats not really saying much.
one might think we can construct fictional transcendental systems from axioms in order to reach some form of pure Truth, but those truths will always lay on a foundation of fiction.
The progression of events in time exhibit a direction but not the time as a duration which is merely a degree of freedom, analogous to a street on which cars pass in only one direction due to a city ordinance. The city ordinance is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics??
Entanglementsolved paper could be the final nail in the coffin on this issue.
by explaining the Ψ w-function as a probability wave of a potential future event within each individual reference frame. This can be explained by just two simple postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ explained by Schrödinger's wave equation represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
This theory only needs three dimensions within a Universe of continuous energy exchange, continuous change. Schrodinger's Cat as a group of atom collapses' its own wave function forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of its own actions. This gives us an understanding to quantum Mechanics that fits in with the reality of our everyday life!
This video explains this thought experiment by using a new theory called Quantum Atom Theory or QAT.
Hello Ian very happy that Schröder's cat is still alive. I like her very much and I assume that She will continue to learn. I say to all People thank you from I can Learn. Thank you for your Report. It is very Interesting.
Great interview. Ty
Thanks!
Human beings do Bayesian analysis in their heads the same way an outfielder analyses the parabolic trajectories of fly balls. And they make mistakes the same way an outfielder would. It's a skill of the Cerebellum, not the cortex! I know next to nothing about cubism, but I can say that much.
Intersting vidio. I agree that Schrodinger's cat is just a thought experiment to illustrate the weirdness of quantum mechanics. I think the measurement problem is hear to stay for a while. Personally I don't like the Idea of shut up and do the math and I do not have any prefered interpration.
Presentism vs eternalism is an interesting idea but difficult to precisely define. I would describe it as analogy to technology. Where eternalism would be like a video tape, where everything just exists in the tape and the machine moves between the frames in the way that we move in time. Presentism would say time is more like computer memory, where there is only a present contents in RAM and this changes as programs run and modify the contents according to algorithms and operations. But the previous and future state don't really exist they're just history or potentials.
I am not convinced that general relatively rules out presentism. What GR rules out is a single universal absolutely simultaneous conception of now. But a local now that is not universal may still be consistent with GR.
"Geometry with atomic elements that are not points."
So... Smaller than points meaning... Negative dimensions?
Since the probability field of QM is nothing more than the time-space sector in Larson's Reciprocal System -- meaning, the probability field is time in three dimensions, the inverse of space -- the cat is in fact existing in different time dimensions at once.
It would be helpful if you knew what space and time were. That would shed some, uh, _light_ on the _matter_
I would like to suggest cutting these conversations into smaller clips in addition to the long format. Good content :)
Thanks - short clips are coming up!
Just please don’t put them on this channel. Many RUclipsrs don’t want their subscriber feed flooded with countless small clips of content they’ve already seen as it makes the subscriber feed unusable. To resolve this, most RUclipsrs make a separate clips channel.
Good point, thanks. I’ll separate it out for the future
..speaking of the ancient Greeks, I'm with Plato and a little bit of Aristotle, that time is the measurement of motion, and instead of asking is time fundamental ask if motion is fundamental...a stronger gravitational field means things move slower than in a lesser gravitational field,,,
Thank you for the video.
At around time marker 28:20, finding an application in real physics for Godel's incompleteness theorem is easy. Understand a model or representation of something can never be the very thing it represents. Just that plan and simple. I mathematical model or description of something is not the same thing that it represents or describes. Just that simple. This is where physicists and mathematicians fail. Mathematics is a useful tool to gain insights due to recognizing patterns, configurations, geometrical landscapes, but mathematics is not the fundamental basis of everything nor the language of nature.
Dear RUclips stranger, you have a good head on your shoulders. This is the best comment I've read in awhile. You're a clear thinker. Refreshing.
@@AnHebrewChild Thank you. I honestly try and try to be intellectually honest.
What you said has nothing to do with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. We don't use formal deductive systems explicitly in Physics. The best way to use it is by using the Non Computability equivalent because we use Algorithms extensively and then we know there is a chance that some Laws (like the collapse of the Wave Function) might be non Computable in nature.
@@zemm9003 The collapse of the wave function is not computable because it is not real. Super positions do not exist. Godel's incompleteness theorems show mathematics is not consistent nor complete. A model or representation can never be the very thing it represents, literally is a physical analog of the theorems. There are things in nature that cannot be represented by mathematics, and there are things in mathematics that do not represent nature.
@@odenwalt Godel's Theorem has nothing to do with Mathematics but with formal deduction. It reveals the inability of humans to understand the World past a certain limit. It is a cognitive limitation that is inherent to our species that other species need not have if they are smarter than us. Superposition is basically the first postulate of Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the Wave Function is everything) and the collapse is the Born Rule which is the second. Not only do you not understand Gödel's Theorem but you are also clueless on the Physics side as well.
2:03:30 - Constants of Nature.
At 38m 15s, Tim Maudlin says, “That’s where I think relativity is wrong, I think you need a foliation.” A preferred spatial foliation of spacetime constitutes a preferred reference frame, which violates the relativity of simultaneity (all spatial foliations are equally valid) and the relativity principle (the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames), at least in spirit. Tim believes this is necessary to accommodate faster-than-light influences (Einstein’s “spooky actions at a distance”) that he wants to use to account for the empirically verified Bell-inequality-violating correlations predicted by quantum entanglement. This ugly fact leads him to say (at 2h):
“This universe we’re living in is not the kind of universe an intelligent creature would make who had humanity at the center of their concerns.”
It also led him to write in his book “Quantum Non‐Locality and Relativity” (Wiley, 2011):
“One way or another, God has played us a nasty trick. The voice of Nature has always been faint, but in this case it speaks in riddles and mumbles as well. Quantum theory and Relativity seem not to directly contradict one another, but neither can they be easily reconciled. Something has to give: either Relativity or some foundational element of our world-picture must be modified. Physicists may glory in the challenge of developing radical new theories in which non-locality and relativistic space-time structure can more happily co-exist. Metaphysicians may delight in the prospect of fundamentally new ontologies, and in the consequent testing and stretching of conceptual boundaries. But the real challenge falls to the theologians of physics, who must justify the ways of a Deity who is, if not evil, at least extremely mischievous.”
We open Chapter 9 of our book "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" (Oxford UP, 2024) with that last quote because Tim’s attitude is the perfect foil for what we show in the previous eight chapters. Not only is there no contradiction between special relativity (SR) and quantum mechanics (QM) due to the QM prediction and observed violation of Bell’s inequality, but the axiomatic reconstruction of QM from information-theoretic principles shows that the two theories actually follow from the same principle. Specifically, the kinematics of SR (Lorentz transformations) and QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle. There is also a beautiful symmetry between length contraction and time dilation per the relativity of simultaneity and the Bell-inequality-violating correlations of quantum entanglement per ‘average-only’ conservation. Let me summarize that here.
According to Einstein, SR is a "principle theory," i.e., a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. For SR that empirically discovered fact is the light postulate -- everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR.
Likewise, quantum information theorists have rendered QM a principle theory and its empirically discovered fact is called Information Invariance & Continuity. In more physical terms, Information Invariance & Continuity entails that everyone measures the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the "Planck postulate"). Since h is a constant of Nature according to Planck's radiation law, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by relative orientations in space (rotations), the relativity principle tells us the Planck postulate must obtain, whence the finite-dimensional Hilbert space of QM.
Quantum superposition is one consequence of the Planck postulate and that leads to 'average-only' conservation, which is responsible for the mystery of quantum entanglement. However, once you understand how 'average-only' conservation follows from quantum superposition, which follows from the Planck postulate, which follows from the relativity principle and Planck’s radiation law, there is nothing mysterious about the Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. Here is how those correlations make perfect sense using spin-1/2.
Suppose you send a vertical spin up electron to Stern-Gerlach (SG) magnets oriented at 60 deg relative to the vertical. Since spin is a form of angular momentum, classical mechanics says the amount of the vertical +1 angular momentum that you should measure at 60 deg is +1*cos(60) = 1/2 (in units of hbar/2). But, the SG measurement of electron spin constitutes a measurement of h, so everyone has to get the same +/- 1 for a spin measurement in any SG spatial orientation, which means you can't get what you expect from common sense classical mechanics. Instead, QM says the measurement of a vertical spin up electron at 60 deg will produce +1 with a probability of 0.75 and it will produce -1 with a probability of 0.25, so the average is (+1 + 1 + 1 - 1)/4 = 1/2. In other words, QM says you get the common sense classical result on 'average only' because of the observer-independence of h.
Now suppose Alice and Bob are measuring the spin singlet state (the two spins are anti-aligned when measured in the same direction) and Alice obtains +1 vertically and Bob measures his particle at 120 deg relative to Alice. Obviously, if Bob had measured vertically he would have obtained -1, so at 120 deg Alice says he should get 1/2 per our single particle example. But of course, Bob must measure the same value for h that Alice does, so he can't get the fractional value of h Alice says he should (otherwise, Alice would be in a preferred reference frame). Instead, his outcomes at 120 deg corresponding to Alice's +1 outcomes vertically average to 1/2 just like the single particle case. And, of course, the data are symmetric so Bob can partition the results according to -*-his-*- +/- 1 outcomes and show that Alice's results satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum on 'average only'.
In the end, Alice partitions the data per her +/- 1 outcomes and says Bob's results must be averaged to satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum, while Bob's partition says Alice's outcomes must be averaged (Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame, Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15771 (2020)). This should remind you immediately of an analogous situation in SR. There when Alice and Bob occupy different references frames via relative motion, they partition spacetime events per their own surfaces of simultaneity and show clearly that each other's meter sticks are short and their clocks run slow.
In other words, the mystery of quantum entanglement resides in 'average-only' conservation that results from "no preferred reference frame" (NPRF) giving the observer-independence of h (NPRF + h). And, the mysteries of length contraction and time dilation reside in the relativity of simultaneity that results from "no preferred reference frame" giving the observer-independence of c (NPRF + c).
So, whose meter sticks are really short and whose clocks really run slow? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no causal mechanism shortening meter sticks and slowing down clocks in SR. Length contraction and time dilation are not dynamical effects, they are kinematic facts due to the light postulate, as justified by the relativity principle.
Likewise, who has to average their data to conserve spin angular momentum? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no non-local or superdeterministic or retro causal mechanism responsible for Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. ‘Average-only’ conservation is not a dynamical effect, it’s a kinematic fact due to the Planck postulate, as justified by the relativity principle.
Give up your constructive bias for QM, just as is done for SR, and physics makes perfect sense. God, it seems, is neither “evil” nor “extremely mischievous,” but benevolent in an impartial fashion. In short, NPRF + h and NPRF + c reveal that ‘God has made the world’ so that QM and SR phenomena may be understood via empirical investigations from any and all reference frames of our data collection devices, because the mathematical regularities (including their constants of Nature) that provide an understanding of the data are valid in all of those reference frames.
Maybe you should write a book?
@@toby9999 As referenced in my Comment: "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" (Oxford UP, 2024). Also, see our papers: "No Preferred Reference Frame at the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics," Entropy 2022, 24(1), 12 and "Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame," Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15771 (2020). Both are open access.
Wow, that was some strong verbal diarrhea. ;-)
This is the explanation of “time crystal’s” mirror symmetry phase transitions reversals.
Someone replied to me "Time is that which clocks show." I'll accept that definition if someone can define for me what a "clock" is, (and of course WITHOUT referencing time!) Until then, it still seems that time is so fundamental that it is impossible to define it in terms of any more foundational concept. I say "seems" because time may in fact be emergent, but I know of no details of any theory that establishes conclusively, or even probabilistically, that it is emergent, or what it emerges from. If anyone does, please enlighten me.
I’m not sure if this is part of Loop Quantum Gravity or whether its simply Lee Smolin’s personal views, but he says on an interview with Lex Fridman that “time is just events” and the flow of time is the ordering of causative events. Whether or not this is emergent or fundamental depends on how emergence is defined and could depend on how fundamental an “event” is in your theory.
We observe CHANGES, METAMORPHOSES. And some seem more or less CYCLIC. Clocks are such CYCLIC systems. There is no "time" out of these, at least in physiological Clocks that get lost prety fast when disconected from soli lunar ones, as in a cave.
"Aging" is the main source of illusion about "time" arbitrary belief.
But there seem to be an INTRINSIC EMERGENT TIME. See Alain Connes in NON COMMUTATIVE GENERALISED VON NEUMANN GEOMETRY
Well if you look at the bell inequality paper and see the ABC representaion of why entagled particles cannot be local ... Thats actually a pure logical argument, that can be shown in a diagram....
And if you look at a spacetime diagram you will notice that you don't need any of this. ;-)
The Schroedinger equation is known to be accurate to some fourteen decimal places. I will just suggest that it continues to be accurate to at least a hundred decimal places, and that modification of it is forbidden. There is nothing like a viscosity term to be added on.
So how do we get from this rigidly deterministic equation to an outcome where that cat is either definitely alive or definitely dead? Well Bell’s Theorem is telling us to take an interest in nonlocal activity, and just playing around with the Minkowski formalism, we will quickly notice that there could be more than one way to travel faster than light. I would suggest that the SE describes an oscillation in one of the ways. We can have orthogonal tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way. No aetiology is proposed for this.
Being orthogonal, TBM is a useless idea in a superfluid. In a warm environment, the tripartite nonlinear interaction between TBM, the wave function and the electromagnetic field is capable of delivering an outcome with a cat classically alive or dead.
This is one for computer simulation. An equivalent situation is the interaction between an alpha particle and two molecules of nitrogen tri-iodide. This needs to have an outcome which is qualitatively different from two molecules of nitrogen trifluoride. Adding tachyonic Brownian motion which is initially orthogonal to everything else is what I propose. Other ideas are welcome.
Generally any computer simulation of quantum mechanics needs to make use of a random number generator. Is this stating the obvious?
The Schroedinger equation doesn't even predict helium correctly. What you probably mean is quantum electrodynamics... but that has nothing to do with the Schroedinger equation.
@@lepidoptera9337 I am just talking in a generic sense. The received theory of quantum mechanics is in no need of modification at the ensemble level. We lack a theory of the detailed level of individual events. Suggestions welcome.
@@david_porthouse Yes, you are talking a lot of generic nonsense. ;-)
Which way to the future ?
Here is what is at stake with the block universe proposal. Is the universe open-ended? is it indeterminate? Is it incomplete? Is Laplace demon impossible in principle, not just actually?
Or not?
If the block universe is "metaphysically real," then not. And if not, then any conception of freedom is ultimately irrational and in actuality impossible. That is what is at stake in that (meta)physical debate.
This also gives insight into the significance some thinkers place on Godels incompleteness theorem. It suggests that logic or mathematics itself is incompletable and open ended.
1:10:20 - "It must somehow come about..." Exactly. This is where scientists (and particularly modern consciousness scientists) engage in an act of FAITH every bit as extreme as religious people. "it has to be emergence, because there's nothing else for it to be." The sheer arrogance astounds me. Science has more than earned its keep these last few centuries - it is ***okay*** to say "We have no earthly idea."
Which is precisely what Tim says.
Moral truths/standards aren't realized. They are established, through material-social historical interests and struggles.
Have you read "Time Matters eBook"?
..and "Not even wrong".
The Calculus of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional logarithmic condensation resonance is never in a discrete condition other than mono-dualistic, a perceptions paradox of dualistic superposition quantization.
My Early Childhood Education began in a 1st grade school school room with a wall chart cross section of the Human Eye, and that diagram of inverted images in proportion to the outside image observed. (Now it is making sense, by default, as Schroedinger's Cat imagery should)
A Camera Obscura setup that is shown to reproduce the i-reflection containment state of relative-timing ratio-rates Perspective Principle Universe, and the same Singularity-point Lensing orientation-observation of convergence-divergence lines of sight axial-tangential to the mono-dualistic cross section of log-antilog superimposed continuous connection, is as basic a realization of true existence as Schroedinger's Equation is of 0-1-2-ness GD&P parallel coexistence assessment of QM-TIME Completeness Actuality.
(Too simple to explain, it's resonance)
Are the time dimension and spatial dimensions qualitatively different? Well, yes, there is no way to convert a ''meter stick'' alone into a ''clock''!
However, a 3D time 1D space manifold would be the same as a 1D time 3D space manifold. So I read once
just found you chamnel recently. thanks!
So, here is my question. If I close my eyes and jump off a cliff, will I die? Just because you do not know what the state is, does not follow that the state exists.
True. Except if we define "you" as being any particle.
That state indeed doesn't exist until you hit the ground. However we know from painful experience your body will not longer operate.
Unquestionably a great thinker. At least up to the point where his basic assumptions are questioned. And that is: realism. What the experimental validation of Bell's inequalities seems to point out is that one cannot be realist *and* localist at the same time. He clearly chooses to be a realist and a non-localist and goes out of his way to rewrite history to make it appear that most Q physicists (at least the most popular ones) had also made that choice. Notwithstanding the numerous quotes from almost all of the early developers of Q physics that question realism. But, unfortunately, anything that goes in the opposite direction of defying realism, such as Qbism, is treated with some contempt. Following his own sage advice, we should be more open to *any* assumption that agrees with predictions *and* offers ontological clarity. The assumption that the observed world is just that, an "observed" world, is an assumption not to be taken so lightly, in my humble opinion.
”The metrical structure …distinguishes time-like directions from space-like directions”. There goes another couple of months of productive research time. I will end up getting sacked for working in the wrong field of science…
@UCIuxyPK_R3S4YWXguubJ8AQ because I am interested in metrics in general, and would like to understand how they combine time and space. But don’t worry, I will not literally spend that much time on it, perhaps a day at the most : )
I disagree with y our arguments about the brain. Specifically, Penrose et al showed or at least postulated a mechanism by which coherence could be maintained in a "large, warm and wet" structure like the brain (the ordered water inside of microtubules). Secondly, no, science hasn't explained much if anything about how the brain actually works. There's a surface veneer of understanding. A lot of neuroscience fell with the Great Brushing Under the Rug (the replication crisis). Most of it is nonsense.
19:00 what's the German word there?
Mathematics evolved from our physical sense of objects like I have 2 Apples. However the deeper we drove into the physical world it appears to breakdown. The human machine that invented mathematics does not fully understand itself.
Didn't Kastrup blow this guy out of the water?
The other way around. Kastrup ran home to mommy crying after Maudlin challenged him. A total loser.
@@ricomajestic That's not how I remember it. I do remember Maudlin evincing genuine lack of respect for Kastrup while simultaneously trying to gaslight listeners.
I remember thinking Kastrup was right to give him the old heave ho.
@@James-ll3jb I suggest you go watch the video. Kastrup ran off after he called other ideas besides his own stupid and yet he has zero evidence for any of his ideas but somehow his view is the correct one. Maudlin called him out on it and he ran off crying.
@@ricomajestic I will try to find it.
Kastrup is an idiot.
Tim Maudlin is the type of guy to argue against everything Einstein would state.
Some of the things Einstein thought about quantum mechanics are simply not so. That is not the problem with Maudlin. The problem is that he can't give you a ten word explanation for things that only require ten words. He buries a rather trivial thing under a mountain of completely unnecessary (and sometimes outright false) statements.
Before we can reach a more universal perception, we need to realize a better conceptual understanding of what reality is. I can, of course, only speak from my own introspective experience, which is that universal conceptual perception becomes attainable if you do not begin with the Universe. As humans, we are too strongly conditioned by our human scale within a spacetime bubble. Starting with the Universe as a starting point means you create orientation from a highly complex state. Instead, begin by realizing that reality needs to be self-sustaining, self-acknowledging, self-explanatory, and must contain itself. Reality is bound by principles and can only move forward conditionally. Solve the simplicity of the essence of reality, and then move on to the Universe.
A good starting point is this: for reality to be in a state of equilibrium, it must contain nothing that contradicts its own nature as a conditional necessity.
Every solution begins with a common thread, a starting point, and the entire solution is the ball of yarn. I wish every philosopher the patience and joy to unravel this thread themselves, in order to discover a complete foundation for reality.
Reality is the totality of irreversible energy exchanges. There, solved it for you in eight words. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Thanks for your effort, but nope thats not it :)
@@blijebij Yeah, that is it, you were just not paying any attention in undergrad physics. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 It's interesting to think about how reality could describe itself. Perhaps there's more to it than just energy and spacetime. What do you think? After all, energy is a manifestation and a consequence of existence, not the underlying relationship. So I have to disagree with you here, its not a matter of not paying attention, its a matter of being stuck in physics from out our conditioned perspective, or see from a more universal angle. If we do, the latter, energy as well as SpaceTime will show to be emergent.
@@blijebij What I think is that you are hiding your lack of intellectual curiosity behind a wall of meaningless words. ;-)
What do they mean when they say QM is reversable? Do they mean probability is reversed?
We mean that the unitary evolution of the wave function has time reversal symmetry. Unfortunately that is not an actual physical process. The physical processes underlying quantum mechanical measurement are, by definition, irreversible. Of course so is the entire universe, so it's not quantum mechanics that is wrong. Hamiltonian mechanics is.
@@lepidoptera9337 Hamiltonian is the heart of QM.
@@sonarbangla8711 No, it isn't. You simply don't know what QM is and why Hamiltonian mechanics is 100% incorrect. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Care to explain how or why, please.
You need a model for what you think it works befor you can discuss what it is, othervise you are just waistingvyour time. E.g. gravity compress space ( solve Einsteins eq without time) and since time is generated by the space it is going slower where the space is compressed. Say in quanta or just in random fluctuations. Then discuss it.
1:18:17 Again you're making a category error. Companies and entrepreneurs find uses for and create products from science. They even advance science in some cases, like Bell Labs inventing the transistor, and Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments inventing the integrated circuit, and Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor inventing the first monolithic IC chip.
If Einstein had been alive when John Bell published his derivation, I reckon Einstein would have reminded Bell that timekeeping is local. When the eastbound particle is at distance +x and the westbound particle is at -x, they are not the same age. The time-varying components of λ(x,t) have decohered and do not have the same phase. Any gravitational gradient along the path suffices to produce dechorence of the phase of λ(x,t). That decoherence explains why Bell's inequality does not agree with experimental observation. In short, the violation of Bell's Inequality proved that Einstein was correct about the warping of spacetime. Bell's derivation would only apply to a cosmos free of gravitational gradients.
One thing we do know is that entropy always inceases so you can't unbreak an egg as the arrow of time is only in one direction. I think what you are saying is that there are local hidden variables that we are unaware of. EPR paradox. A thought experiment one could synchronize the clocks of two entangled particals and perform a mesurment on the one and then see if the collapse is instantaneous as long as they are at rest with one another and free from any external forces. That is oviously not possible so where does it leave us? Einstein convention say light travels at the same speed for all obsevers but we can only measure its speed in a return trip. Many worlds says the wavefuntion does not collapse but intead splits the universe .It seems to me that that what happens depends on ones preferred interpretation.
@@garffieldiscool1163~ In the presence of gravitational gradients along the paths, you can't synchronize the clocks. Each particle ages according to its own local "proper time" and thus drift out of phase and decohere. I suppose if you knew the exact gravitational gradient, you could take a gravitational path integral to precisely compute the phase drift. Otherwise, it's statistically random, which is how it typically appears.
@@BarryKort Yes that's what I meant when I said force (Gravity gradient).Some might say differetial force or fictitious force due to curvature of space time.I was thinking of a flat space time scenario.Gravity is not included in the Schrodinger equation so who knows.
@@garffieldiscool1163 ~ In Special Relativity, one assumes an inertial frame of reference (meaning no gravitational gradients). In that case, one does not have to worry about differential timekeeping. Bell's Inequality can be derived in such a flat spacetime, as both particles experience identical "proper time" - they do age in perfect phase-locked synchrony. But our cosmos does have gravitational gradients so that GR must be taken into account if you want to explain why Bell's Inequality is violated in our cosmos.
@@BarryKort Yes that's true, the particles have mass( Higgs field) and we alslo have redshift, so no proper flat space in reality.
i respect maudlin immensely and love hearing him explore interesting topics... but on the topic of ethics and morality i dont think he could be more wrong. there is no objective morality.
Wibble.
You will reliably avert from noxious stimuli mediated by pain/suffering states/nociception. That's objectively measurable, and the explanatory model is parsimonious and predictive.
*In that regard* treating "everyone" equally is all an objective morality can ever be.
Nowhere in that is it implied that a delusional elderly person in late stage dementia should be treated *in an absolutely identical manner* as someone ostensibly sane/lucid/functional.
I think you are taking him a bit to literally. I don't think that's exactly what he means. To me the foundation of morality is don't do to others what you would not like. Of course there are caveats, but that's (I think) what he's getting at. It's interesting that you cannot easily be moral without the skill of empathy. Some people lack this skill and that may be the cause of most of our social problems.
@@carlhitchon1009 I wrote about these elsewhere on RUclips, so I won't do it again here. Morality depends on the moral system you are using. You have selected the golden rule, a saying found in many religions. Yes, most morality depends on empathy, something Kant did not like for the reason you mention; if you don't have empathy toward a group or individual, you will not treat them morally, so he tried to create morality based on rationality, using the categorical imperative: never treat anyone as a means toward an end. (Of course, we often break that rule, just as we often don't treat others as we'd want to be treated.) Utilitarianism says the greatest good for the greatest number. But there are many problems there as well. (This resulted in a video where Peter Singer, the animal rights philosopher, had to admit that the utilitarian system allowed for the child of a terrorist to be tortured if it would save innocent lives.) There are strengths and weaknesses with all of these systems, which I can't go into here. I know more about this area than I do physics. And I know a great deal more about literature. All I do know, with any area of study, is how important it is to question one's assumptions and the assumptions of others. That makes me skeptical about most things I hear/read.
Yes the golden rule is fundamentally based on empathy. Those that don't have it cannot really appreciate the value of the rule.@@Jan96106
If increasing gravity slows the passage of time, then the speed of light cannot be everywhere constant but is ruled by the principles of relativity
Indulge me and follow this absurdity into a black hole where time stops, if there is no time light ceases, leaving only mass. But mass is equal to energy divided by the spp of light squared. Of course this is silly, but can it be explained by the double slit experiment?
Gravity doesn't slow the passage of time. It only lengthens the effective distance a clock's signal has to travel to get to us.
I take it that you are more Bohmian than many worlds then?? Our everyday experience which many invoke the many worlds can be explained by the Bohmian pilot wave idea. If we jump between worlds upon every decision then why don’t we change into worlds with alternate past histories?? If we only jump into worlds with alternate future histories from the point of decision then why, we should also jump into worlds with alternate pasts from he point of decision but that doesn’t happen in everyday experience why?? One reason we do not jump into worlds with alternate pasts is that could be a violation of the order of causation, after going to the store for for instance we could jump into a world where our coffers were full and we did not need any supplies from the store??
and I wouldn’t say physics is the most ontological science either, its pretty much like any other except for its aim to discover as close to an ontological picture as possible at least in one branch. so meaning to say that it is not the science that is special, it is the subject of investigation, which is not entirely the same thing at least to my mind.
If you want to understand what reality is really like, you go to a physicist. We don’t-currently, at least-have a better method of understanding (fundamental) reality. In that sense it most definitely is the most ontologically rigorous approach to comprehending the world.
The bias in Dr. Maudlin's reasoning about time is anthropocentrism. He asserts that time is directional simply because that's the way he experiences it. He is so bound to this experience that he asserts we that we can actually stop questioning directionality simply because he sees no need. That we humans experience a directionality is a very weak reason to believe the rest of the universe agrees.
On reductionism i have one thing to say. Namely that all processes in nature aka out there man aka in the lab occurrences aka the stuff that is actually going on, yes they reduce to the same basic logic of the world as it is, well simply put the reality of the situation is just that, it can’t be any other way because then that other way would be it. Science however is about understanding and usefully using the knowledge about how tgat stuff happens to do stuff, wether it’s furthering knowledge or making tasty ice cream or curing cancer, in that endeavor its safe to say that if we had perfected knowledge about everything we would be able to treat economics, biology and physics as one subject, the only subject, namely what happens next, but thats not where we are and therefore it’s necessary and useful to use different abstractions for different things to get more done, and playing around in all sort of ways with the way we mix and exploiting simple schemes is a very profitable part of that. to avoid a simplistic understanding of this divide its also good to keep in mind that we are just creatures floating around in space over here and having to fully sort out our priors or epistemology before discovering what or how we should do things when met with new challenges is just a giant waste of time, we simply need to practical way to do things, and simultaneously keep hacking away at both our philosophical inclinations and out physical or other theories without letting one side consume the other so to speak, reductionism is fine as long as it isn’t itself seen as a methodological ideal in all cases, and its a tool not a principle for all endeavors.
I want to ask him about ER = EPR and the detection of worm hole in a quantum processor/
Anyone who pays close attention to Physics in general is hearing the same cry everywhere: *They are stuck.*
Provide a venue for fresh new Ideas to be brought forth by non professionals, laymen and this quagmire will end and new roads exposed.
Make it a completion with a financial incentive for the top ideas and a deadline and the roads will be paved within a year.
_Come on Elon!_
In the case of ethics its pretty simple, not in a strickly hedonistic sense, but the question of wether or not you can have a good or a bad life, wether a person or an animal can be better or worse of due to the actions of others? If that has any sort of answer, wether subjective or not, it still shows that our actions matter to others in a real tangible way. I think the questions of wether morality is subjective or objective is a bit mistaken m, that only matters in terms of our description of it, in our experience we will feel the consequences and would always have some preference in retrospect, if we have all the experience possible to have and sat down together and talked about what would be right for each of us given perfect clarity in sekf reflection we would surly have strong preferences even independently of a finite set of principles to base it upon, so yeah, above the principles there is such a thing is objective preferences for better lives to live and thats enough as a motivation i think. but given our imposition here as imperfect beings with limited insight, we also have to treat morality as a practical means to reach for that end of everyone being better of on a case by case basis, but keeping in mind that it is the means and exact ends that are a mixture of relative and obscured, rather than the aspiration, which should just be to help each other live better lives as far as we understand a good life, and therefore also try to understand each others conception of such a thing and learn from each other, we can’t really do anything else.
This science discussion is wonderful, the conventional "Christian" ethics is bad. At 1:17:34 his comparison between the work of a coal miner with what Elon Musk does is a category error. Someone like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs made innovations that millions of people voluntarily paid them money for. In fact, since Jobs died with 80 billion dollars in the bank, society still owed him 80 billion dollars' worth of real goods and services for those green slips of paper and ledger entries. ruclips.net/video/Jtxuy-GJwCo/видео.html
1:17:19 just jumped the shark I love hearing brilliant minds justifying government corruption.
I'm actually quiet annoyed I believed the news story about birds using quantum yadda yadda to navigate, and that they printed it.
Is very simple. Math is just another human language, nothing more, nothing less. You can write stupid and wrong writing in any language and even make sounds logic on it's own terms. It doesn't mean the logic reflect on reality. Like Fiction and Fantasy, there's a lack of comprehension between a fictional math and a real applied one.
First time I notice this was unironically the first time I hear a mathematician trying to extrapolate math out of the Bible. And that basically summarize the whole of science today, decaying and wasting mental power as well as time itself.
Like the goose chase of dark matter and energy. Or even the Big Bang itself. Sadly opinions and taste sip into science as a whole because of the need of research money.
String theory is another thing that is basically a nice fiction base on our lack of understanding about the quantum world.
Mathematicians need to be more rumble about their discipline. Less glamorization of the tool.
Or even worse, when sectors of science use statistic because they can't figure out the laws controlling a natural system, happen all the time.
Weather prediction continue to change every hour for example, and then come politician puppets to say they can predict 100 years when a few days is already hard to do the math of constant change, because is base o n statistics, not a true natural formula.
My take as a layman, you may roast me now.
Agreed. Mathematics is simply a subset in a broader system of human symbolic communication.
@@Zayden. You mean you cannot do math alone?
Does he understand that geometry is an interpretation?
Why does the host whisper almost inaudibly? What great intellectual attribute is imparted to the words he speaks by lowering his voice to a level that is embarrassingly disparate from that of his guest??
The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
QM classicalized in 2010: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the ‘hidden variables ‘ and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, Einstein, Debroglie,Bohr etc. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for physics foundation.
Why do we wish to stay on Earth forever? What happened to the Exploration of the Unknown urge of humanity???!
We can explore it indirectly. We didn't know microbes existed until we invented and instrument to see them. The point is that exploring space with our bodies onsite is currently horribly impractical.
Ugh Newtonian mechanics is not used to predict eclipses times.
Wait, QBism is stupid and that's it? That's the level of rigour displayed by this philosopher of physics? Gee, Tim, thanks for the insight. Sorry, I just can't get onboard with this blanket dismissal of a position like that with no real attempt to give reasons why. QBism is not some loony, fringe interpretation held by maniacs. He also explicitly states he favours Bohmian views because ''it seems to be'' more likely to be true, and that others like Many-Worlds, Collapse theories etc simply don't...
If ur pacing around ur room with a magazine of Sports Illustrated in ur hands with a large model on the cover ur probably Jordan Peterson...🤣🤣🤣
No relation between Godel and physics?? How about time for starters? None of the truths about it can be proven by any axioms of physics by which those truths are not already implied. Prime example of G's Theorem at the heart of physics.
Also, Godel's rotating universe is an exact solution to GR.
What truths are yoi referring to?